# Bavink, is it worth Getting?



## puritansound (Jul 31, 2008)

Friends, 
I have systematics from Hodge, Turretin, Berkoff, Grudem, Calvin, Erickson, and Giesler. Is it worth picking up Bavincks also? what will he add? What about his Essays on Religion and the new one coming out in a few months on the Holy Spirit. Any thoughts are appreciated


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 31, 2008)




----------



## Guido's Brother (Jul 31, 2008)

Bavinck is worth getting not only for his excellent insights, but also for his historical surveys on different dogmatic questions. That would be his greatest strength, in my opinion. And if you want to understand Van Til and how he developed his "copernican revolution" in apologetics, you need to read Bavinck.


----------



## Roldan (Jul 31, 2008)

Trade in the Grudem and Geisler for Bavinck


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 31, 2008)

I echo Guido's remarks, and would say that he is one of the few systematics in the modern period that really understands the post-Reformation tradition and makes positive use of it. Hodge did understand it as well, but made less use of it than Bavinck does. And he is necessary for understanding Van Til (see the excellent article in the Spring 2008 WTJ on this).


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 31, 2008)

By all means get Bavinck. Much of Reformed theology in the 20th century was a popularization of Bavinck's seminal insights and mastery of post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. In this sense, Berkhof is derrivative, Bavinck is original. I would not sell ANY of your books (possible exception of Geisler - grrrrrrr). But, just as Turretin fills an important place following Calvin and Beza, and Grudem and Erickson will bring you up to date, you need Bavinck to read alongside Hodge to fill in the blanks between Protestant scholasticism and the current crop of dogmaticians.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 31, 2008)

It has been said that Bavinck was the greatest Reformed theologian since Calvin. Need I say more?


----------



## Casey (Jul 31, 2008)

And it's a brand new translation, so it reads like it was just written yesterday!


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 31, 2008)

What's the best price on Bavinck out there? Solid Ground Books has his 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics for around $120.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 31, 2008)

Marrow Man said:


> What's the best price on Bavinck out there? Solid Ground Books has his 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics for around $120.



Reformation Heritage Books has it for $100.


----------



## puritansound (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks all. I believe I should pick up the set. Best price I have found is WTSbooks.com for $98.99 & $4 shipping. They package books great and are super fast.
I also have Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics which I love. Any thoughts on how the scholarship of Muller matches up with Bavinck?


----------



## caddy (Aug 1, 2008)

This would be a NICE birthday present to myself


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 1, 2008)

puritansound said:


> Thanks all. I believe I should pick up the set. Best price I have found is WTSbooks.com for $98.99 & $4 shipping. They package books great and are super fast.
> I also have Muller's Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics which I love. Any thoughts on how the scholarship of Muller matches up with Bavinck?



They are both great masters in the post-Reformation tradition. Muller is engaged in a more descriptive enterprise, whereas Bavinck in a much more prescriptive enterprise. Nevertheless, I think it is fairly clear that they have a very similar take on the post-Reformation tradition.


----------



## cornopean (Aug 1, 2008)

Reformation Heritage "Book Talk": Dr. Beeke’s Top 10 Reads of 2007: Part Two


----------



## DeoOpt (Aug 1, 2008)

I would get bavinck as well. Allso look at getting Shed's Dogmatic theology as well, another fin book I must say


----------



## jawyman (Aug 1, 2008)

I know I am echoing the sentiment of the others, but I highly recommend Bavinck. He is a required read at PRTS. When it comes to Systematics, Bavinck should not only be required, but essential.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 1, 2008)

Yes, get Bavinck.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 1, 2008)

puritansound said:


> Friends,
> I have systematics from Hodge, Turretin, Berkoff, Grudem, Calvin, Erickson, and Giesler. Is it worth picking up Bavincks also? what will he add? What about his Essays on Religion and the new one coming out in a few months on the Holy Spirit. Any thoughts are appreciated




I have heard quotations from Bavinck that sounded antithetical to the idea that Christians can have any true knowledge of God at all. That "adequate knowledge of God does not exist" and the suchlike. He does not think that God can be defined, and that "he has no name". Such sentiments do not sound anything like our confessions, or (more importantly) like the Sacred Scriptures themselves, which give us "all that we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and virtue." 

Anywho, this is all that I have ever heard of Bavinck, and I'm sure he was just trying to be pious, but I can't comment on the rest of his Systematic.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## larryjf (Aug 2, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> I have heard quotations from Bavinck that sounded antithetical to the idea that Christians can have any true knowledge of God at all. That "adequate knowledge of God does not exist" and the suchlike. He does not think that God can be defined, and that "he has no name". Such sentiments do not sound anything like our confessions, or (more importantly) like the Sacred Scriptures themselves, which give us "all that we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and virtue."
> 
> Anywho, this is all that I have ever heard of Bavinck, and I'm sure he was just trying to be pious, but I can't comment on the rest of his Systematic.
> 
> ...




I may be wrong, but i believe Bavinck speaks particularly of the incomprehensibility of the very nature of God.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 2, 2008)

*Defining God*

While we may discern something of the nature and attributes of God from His revealed Word, we as finite creatures CAN NOT with absolute certainty and thoroughness DEFINE all that God is. 

Our thoughts are not His thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. God is incomprehensible, yet He has condescended to reveal somethings about about Himself in the Holy Scripture.

I believe Bavinck is simply warning of the dangers of trying go beyond God's revealed truth. While it is permissible and possible to "describe God" (as He Has revealed Himself in His Word), it is not possible to "ultimately DEFINE God," for we are limited by what He has revealed about Himself. To go beyond that revelation is neither right or safe!








larryjf said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard quotations from Bavinck that sounded antithetical to the idea that Christians can have any true knowledge of God at all. That "adequate knowledge of God does not exist" and the suchlike. He does not think that God can be defined, and that "he has no name". Such sentiments do not sound anything like our confessions, or (more importantly) like the Sacred Scriptures themselves, which give us "all that we need for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and virtue."
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 2, 2008)

Yes. Absolutely. Quickly.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 2, 2008)

*More on "defining God"*

Bavinck writes:



> We may therefore speak of the "system of truth" contained in Scripture only if we are careful to note that its various doctrines are not to be obtained by way of deduction from some master concept. There is no doubt consonance between the "doctrine of God," the "doctrine of man," and the "doctrine of Christ" as found in Scripture But even when conjoined and seen in their fullest hamony, these and other doctrines together* do not begin to exhaust the riches of God's revelation to man through Christ and his Spirit*.


 (from: Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith, page 161).

There is no truth nor system of truth over God.We know nothing of God, but that which He has revealed to us!

As Rushdoony has it:



> To speak of the sovereignty of God means also to speak of His incomprehensibility. Because God is sovereign, omnipotent, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in all His perfection, it means that to talk of such a God is to speak of one who is incomprehensible to man. *Man the creature can never comprehend or know exhaustively such a God.* He can, however, know God truly, although not exhaustively. God's perfections make Him totally self-consistent, and God's revelation of Himself in His written word and in the incarnate Word give us a true knowledge of God. *To grasp the totality of His nature and being exhaustively would require a mind equal to God, an impossibility. *Our knowledge of God increases as we grow in faith and obedience, but, because He is infinite and eternal, *His incomprehensibility never diminishes*.



(from: Rousas John Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, page 181).



Presbyterian Deacon said:


> While we may discern something of the nature and attributes of God from His revealed Word, we as finite creatures CAN NOT with absolute certainty and thoroughness DEFINE all that God is.
> 
> Our thoughts are not His thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. God is incomprehensible, yet He has condescended to reveal somethings about about Himself in the Holy Scripture.
> 
> ...


----------



## puritansound (Aug 2, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> While we may discern something of the nature and attributes of God from His revealed Word, we as finite creatures CAN NOT with absolute certainty and thoroughness DEFINE all that God is.
> 
> Our thoughts are not His thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. God is incomprehensible, yet He has condescended to reveal somethings about about Himself in the Holy Scripture.
> 
> ...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 2, 2008)

Bavinck was Reformed! Of course he taught the incomprehensibility of God "in himself." 

Finitum non capax infiniti.

See "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology"


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 2, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Bavinck was Reformed! Of course he taught the incomprehensibility of God "in himself."
> 
> Finitum non capax infiniti.
> 
> See "Janus, the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel, and Westminster Theology"



 My point exactly! However, I'm not sure why your link takes me to a book by Van Drunen. (?) Am I missing something?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 2, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Bavinck was Reformed! Of course he taught the incomprehensibility of God "in himself."
> ...



I believe he is referencing an article that he wrote that is published in that book.

CT


----------

