# Reformed Dogmatics - Bavinck vs Vos



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 9, 2018)

I have Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics which I greatly love. I am considering getting Vos' Reformed Dogmatics. What are the unique strengths of Bavinck over Vos, or Vos over Bavinck? Just interested in a comparison.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 10, 2018)

Bavinck has a great deal more historical information than Vos. Bavinck sets every single doctrine within not only the Scriptural context, but also in the history of dogma context. Vos, in this respect, is greatly abbreviated. Vos, however, was a better exegete than Bavinck. Vos also had the ability to say much in a small space. Even though Vos's RD is in 5 volumes, each one is rather small. Vos was better at the theological encyclopedia than Bavinck was, though Bavinck was no slouch. Vos was more of a generalist theologian, while Bavinck was a specialist. Vos's RD is for seminary students and for laymen, while Bavinck is pretty tough sledding for the average layman. And should absolutely, no (more) questions asked, get Vos's RD.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 12, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> And should absolutely, no (more) questions asked, get Vos's RD.


Thanks Lane. Based on previous postings I thought you would say this 

I found your comparisons helpful; I take it you are saying Bavinck's and Vos's Reformed Dogmatics nicely compliment each other.

Do you get much of Vos' historic redemptive theology in his RD's or do you find this more in other works (eg his shorter writings, biblical theology etc)


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 12, 2018)

That's more questions, Stephen! No more questions allowed before you buy Vos!!!  

To answer your questions, yes, Vos and Bavinck complement each other very nicely. Both are excellent examples of vanilla (meaning "non-idiosyncratic," not "boring"), straightforward Reformed theology. Both are very insightful.

Vos's RD was written while he was still in his twenties (which makes his accomplishment all the more remarkable). You don't see a lot of redemptive-historical discussion in the RD, but you can see it "behind the scenes," as it were. And you can certainly see his razor-sharp exegetical skills on display.


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Bavinck has a great deal more historical information than Vos. Bavinck sets every single doctrine within not only the Scriptural context, but also in the history of dogma context. Vos, in this respect, is greatly abbreviated. Vos, however, was a better exegete than Bavinck. Vos also had the ability to say much in a small space. Even though Vos's RD is in 5 volumes, each one is rather small. Vos was better at the theological encyclopedia than Bavinck was, though Bavinck was no slouch. Vos was more of a generalist theologian, while Bavinck was a specialist. Vos's RD is for seminary students and for laymen, while Bavinck is pretty tough sledding for the average layman. And should absolutely, no (more) questions asked, get Vos's RD.


Would you agree that some of the real problems many of us would have when reading those older theologians falls under that many of us never had real educational background to knowing classical thoughts, historical theology, just basically people seemed to be on a much higher learning curve when those books were being written?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would you agree that some of the real problems many of us would have when reading those older theologians falls under that many of us never had real educational background to knowing classical thoughts, historical theology, just basically people seemed to be on a much higher learning curve when those books were being written?



Translation???

Would you agree that some of the real problems many of us would have when reading those older theologians would fall under the fact that many of us do not have a solid educational background related to understanding classical theological thinking, historical theology; rather, these men were basically people on a much higher learning curve when their books were being written?

OR...

Would you agree that some of the real problems many of us would have when reading those older theologians would fall under the fact that many of us do not have a solid educational background related to understanding classical theological thinking, historical theology; rather, the readers at the time these books were written were basically people on a much higher learning curve when these books were being written?

Which translation most agrees with what you are trying to ask, David?


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Translation???
> 
> Would you agree that some of the real problems many of us would have when reading those older theologians would fall under the fact that many of us do not have a solid educational background related to understanding classical theological thinking, historical theology; rather, these men were basically people on a much higher learning curve when their books were being written?
> 
> ...


Option 2


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 13, 2018)

Recalling what Jacob said in his review on Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics here.
This is the final paragraph of the review ;
"The book isn’t always easy to read. *If the reader does not have a background heavy in European Rationalism, many of Bavinck’s sparring partners will be over one’s head. *Conversely, if one does have such a background in those disciplines, then there is little point to read Bavinck on them, since he is merely given a cursory reading of them. Nonetheless, this is one of those "great books" in theology."


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 14, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> That's more questions, Stephen!


Well I have a 'try before you buy' policy 

Because of trying Providences, I have limited income, so have to be quite convinced of the usefulness of a theological work before I buy. I had thought Bavinck might have been sufficient but now see Vos would be a very good addition.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 14, 2018)

Stephen, as in biblical commentary writing, no systematic theology (or combination thereof) will exhaust the truth about God. There is always more to learn, and I have discovered that sometimes one author, sometimes another, gets it right. For instance, I have read at least 20 ST's on the question of the two natures of Christ, and Hodge was the most helpful. However, on the question of revelation, Bavinck is amazing.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Recalling what Jacob said in his review on Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics here.
> This is the final paragraph of the review ;
> "The book isn’t always easy to read. *If the reader does not have a background heavy in European Rationalism, many of Bavinck’s sparring partners will be over one’s head. *Conversely, if one does have such a background in those disciplines, then there is little point to read Bavinck on them, since he is merely given a cursory reading of them. Nonetheless, this is one of those "great books" in theology."


It seems that many of the older reference books, especially in Systematic Theology, were written partially to be a refuting of some ongoing/current theological discussion occurring at that time, or were addressing issues with say Church of Rome. Unless one was well vested in those arguments and just why all of the bantering back and forth was going on between positions, could be hard to follow.
I first ran into this while reading through the ST of Hodge, as some of his work there seemed to have been squarely written as a direct rebuke against Roman Catholicism of his time.


----------

