a Brakel's "Chrstian's Reasonable Service"

[sotzo]

Should one start at volume 1 and read through from there in order?

If you couldn't afford all 4 at once, which volume would you recommend to get first?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Wilhelmus wrote the volumes to be read consecutively. It was a tradition among the Dutch to read through all 4 volumes during family devotions over the long winters there.

-CH

 

[BuddyOfDavidClarkson]

I'm reading through all 4 volumes in my morning devotions. I did indeed start with volume 1. It truly is a treasure to read.

The first 2 volumes are dogmatics and the last 2 volumes are ethics. Great stuff!

Should one start at volume 1 and read through from there in order?

If you couldn't afford all 4 at once, which volume would you recommend to get first?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Greetings:

Wilhelmus wrote the volumes to be read consecutively. It was a tradition among the Dutch to read through all 4 volumes during family devotions over the long winters there.

-CH

Bartel Elshout, The Pastoral and Practical Theology of Wilhelmus a Brakel:

This is particularly to be attributed to à Brakel's magnum opus, De Redelijke Godsdienst (The Christian's Reasonable Service). Since its publication, the veneration for this work among those of orthodox Reformed persuasion has been such that in former generations (as recent as the pre-World War II generation) it was customary to read De Redelijke Godsdienst sequentially during long winter evenings.ii This long standing practice is a significant reason why this eminent divine, one of the acclaimed fathers of the Dutch Reformed tradition,iii continues to be held in such high esteem until the present. Already during his forty-nine-year ministry in the Netherlands (1662-1711), during which several editions of De Redelijke Godsdienst were printed, esteem for him was such that he was affectionately referred to as "Father Brakel," a name by which he is still known today in the Netherlands.

ii "Wilhelmus à Brakel en de Redelijke Godsdienst," Daniel 3 (1991):7.
iii J. van Genderen, "Wilhelmus à Brakel," in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrijving van haar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, p. 167.

 

[SEAGOON]

Hi Joel,

Should one start at volume 1 and read through from there in order?

If you couldn't afford all 4 at once, which volume would you recommend to get first?

You can read them individually if you want, I started with Volume 3, and then read 2, 1, and finally 4. It depends what you are looking for. If you are looking for a straightforward systematic theology, read volume 1. If you want a discussion of ethics and the Christian life read volume 3 and then 4.

Personally I would recommend starting with 2, which concentrates on the church and salvation, it makes a wonderful antidote to the silliness of FV theology. For instance, here is A'Brakel from vol.2 on the Imputation of Christ's Active Obedience:

Is the active and actual obedience of Christ, that is, His subjection under the law and the perfect accomplishment thereof, imputed to the elect unto justification and salvation? We answer in the affirmative. The active obedience of Christ in subjecting Himself under, and fulfilling, the law is not only a necessary requisite for Him who would be Mediator (all of which is true for Christ), but this active righteousness of Christ is a part of His satisfaction for His own. As He delivered them from all guilt and punishment by His passion, by His active obedience, fulfilling the law on their behalf, He has also merited a right unto eternal life for them. These two aspects coalesce in Christ and neither may nor can be separated from each other. Christ has merited salvation atoningly and has made atonement meritoriously. Likewise the elect, in being delivered from guilt and punishment, receive a right to eternal life, and in receiving that right are delivered from guilt and punishment. Nevertheless these two aspects of His humiliation— the atonement for guilt and punishment, and the meriting of eternal life— are not identical, but essentially differ from each other. The active and passive obedience of Christ are equally beneficial to the elect.

This is first of all evident from the necessity that the Surety had to subject Himself to the law on behalf of sinners to perfectly fulfil the law on their behalf. This has been demonstrated previously. Since this was required of the Surety, Christ has performed it in order to perfectly execute His Suretyship.

Secondly, we read in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience (that is, Adam’s) many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (that is, Christ) shall many be made righteous.” The law demands perfect conformity to itself. A man’s transgression of the law results in nonconformity to the law, even if by the bearing of punishment he is free from guilt. One can only be conformed to the law by fulfilling its demands— by perfect internal and external holiness. The law does not demand either punishment or holiness, but both. Therefore by removal of guilt the Surety cannot make anyone righteous unless the law has also actually been fulfilled. “He that doeth righteousness is righteous” (1 John 3:7). Since Christ makes His elect righteous, He of necessity must subject Himself to the law on their behalf, fulfilling it in obedience. Thus, by His obedience He makes His elect righteous.

Thirdly, we read in Romans 8:3–4, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” The law was weak, not in and of itself since it is and remains a perfect rule, but due to sin. The law was weak, not to sentence the transgressor to punishment, which it is always authorized to do, but to justify the sinner and to declare him an heir of eternal life, which had been promised upon perfect obedience. “The man which doeth those things shall live by them” (Rom. 10:5). The demand of the law was not to bear punishment upon transgression, but obedience to it. Whereas Christ fulfilled the demand of the law for us, He did not do so by the suffering by which He made satisfaction for the threat of the law, but by subjecting Himself to the law, performing it on behalf of God’s children. This is stated by the apostle in Galatians 4:4, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”

Fourthly, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to His elect and He clothes them with it; thus in Him they are perfect and are the righteousness of God. Observe this in the following texts: “But now the righteousness of God without the law (that is, the righteousness of Christ) is manifested, being witnessed (that is, being approved of) by the law and the prophets” (Rom. 3:21); “. . . not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9); “And ye are complete in Him” (Col. 2:10); “. . . that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21); “He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” (Isa. 61:10). Suffering is not righteousness. Christ’s suffering was not His righteousness (that is, when considering the definition of suffering), but His righteousness is His perfect fulfillment and performance of the law. If therefore Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and we are the righteousness of God in Him, then His being subject to and His performance of the law is imputed to us.

 

[toddpedlar]

Hey Andy -

Thanks for the GREAT a Brakel-ism. Isn't that from Vol. 1? (p. 610 in my 4-vol set from RHB)

Todd

 

[SEAGOON]

Hi Todd,

Hey Andy -

Thanks for the GREAT a Brakel-ism. Isn't that from Vol. 1? (p. 610 in my 4-vol set from RHB)

Todd

Hey Todd, quite right, its from chapter 22 of vol. 1. I wanted a quote that touched explicitly on the Imputation of Christ's active obedience in unambiguous terms (and hey, look at that, even the Dutch believed it was a necessity) because it is the current "we don't believe and don't have to believe" issue in the FV (they seem to have a flavor of the month in terms of key Reformed doctrines they will be denying while still maintaining the are Reformed, and that's the current equivalent of two scoops of Rocky Road).

Sorry for messing that up, thanks for the correction.

PS: We ever going to get that chess game going?

- Andy

 

[MW]

The section titled "God's Objective in Calling Men" is a much needed remedy to some fairly wishy-washy thinking in reformed circles today.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I heard that the volumes "lost something" in translation. Is this true?

 

[greenbaggins]

I've read most of volume 1 and a goodish bit of volume 2. It is quite difficult to imagine that they've lost something. Of course, to a certain extent, every translation loses something. But if this one did, then I can only imagine how good the original is. The theology in the translation is top-notch.