Afscheiding, Doleantie, and Bavinck

[TylerRay]

Seeing that Bavinck came from the Afscheiding tradition prior to the Doleantie, does Neo-Calvinistic thought play much of a role in his theology? Not having read him, I had always thought of him as a Neo-Calvinist, but, as I'm beginning to understand a little bit about Dutch church history, I am curious how correct my conception of him is/was.

Where does Bavinck stand on the covenant/election issue that became such a hot topic in Doleantie circles?

Thanks

 

[Guido's Brother]

Tyler,

As to your first question: it really depends on how you define "neo-Calvinist." Different people define that different ways.

With regard to your second question, I recommend reading Covenant and Election by J. VanGenderen. He discusses Bavinck (and others) at length. Here's a couple of paragraphs:

"Yet, there remains the question whether Bavinck in his doctrine of the covenant did not proceed from election as well. If one only consults his Reformed Dogmatics one is left to wonder, although even there he seems to lean in that direction when he says for instance that the covenant of grace was established with Christ and when he refers to the covenant as the organization of the new humanity under Christ its head.

"It becomes even clearer when we turn also to his Magnalia Dei, a work that appeared about the same time as the second edition of Reformed Dogmatics. In this work election is not treated separately but as introduction to the doctrine of the covenant of grace. Election and covenant, according to Bavinck, far from being opposites, are closely related to each other, election being the foundation and guarantee, as well as the heart and essence of the covenant of grace." (page 27)

There's a lot more about Bavinck, but I'm not going to type it all out. You need to read it.

 

[TylerRay]

Tyler,

As to your first question: it really depends on how you define "neo-Calvinist." Different people define that different ways.

With regard to your second question, I recommend reading Covenant and Election by J. VanGenderen. He discusses Bavinck (and others) at length. Here's a couple of paragraphs:

"Yet, there remains the question whether Bavinck in his doctrine of the covenant did not proceed from election as well. If one only consults his Reformed Dogmatics one is left to wonder, although even there he seems to lean in that direction when he says for instance that the covenant of grace was established with Christ and when he refers to the covenant as the organization of the new humanity under Christ its head.

"It becomes even clearer when we turn also to his Magnalia Dei, a work that appeared about the same time as the second edition of Reformed Dogmatics. In this work election is not treated separately but as introduction to the doctrine of the covenant of grace. Election and covenant, according to Bavinck, far from being opposites, are closely related to each other, election being the foundation and guarantee, as well as the heart and essence of the covenant of grace." (page 27)

There's a lot more about Bavinck, but I'm not going to type it all out. You need to read it.

Thank you, Dr. Bendenhof!

By Neo-Calvinism, I mean the distinctive views usually associated with Kuyperian thought. Here's a quote from the FRCNA website that may help clarify where I am coming from:

The difference between the FRC, the HRC (and let me include here also the NRC) on the one hand, and the CRC, URC, OCRC and CR on the other is this: The latter have distanced and even disinherited themselves from the Second Reformation (Nadere Reformatie), while the former have not (although we are in danger of losing the connection too, if we are not careful).

The Presbyterian churches never went through the historical upheaval called the Doleantie led by Dr. Abraham Kuyper. They ought to be thankful for this for they have been spared much unnecessary strife and division over questions such as covenant and baptism--think of the book, Een Eeuw van Strijd Rondom Verbond en Doop (A Century of Strife about Covenant and Baptism), common grace and the cultural mandate. Presbyterians have had other problems, of course, but they have not suffered the consequences of what Dr. W. Aalders has called The Great Derailment (De Grote Ontsporing). Yes, with Kuyper and the Doleantie the Reformed train went off the track and to this day his disciples are still picking up the pieces of the wreck.

So, some of the distinctive Neo-Calvinist doctrines I am talking about include one-kingdom theology and the "cultural mandate" doctrine. It is my understanding that the debates about presumptive regeneration and other covenant/baptism/election debates are internal to the Neo-Calvinist world.

I understand that not everyone is going to agree with the FRCNA statement above, and I don't mean any disrespect to you or to anyone else coming from the Doleantie tradition. I do, however, think it is important to recognize that there are distinctive doctrines associated with that tradition. My question concerns Bavinck's relationship to those doctrines.

One more clarification: I understand "Neo-Calvinism" "Kuyperianism" and "Doleantie theology" to be essentially synonymous, and I've been using them in that way.

 

[Guido's Brother]

By Neo-Calvinism, I mean the distinctive views usually associated with Kuyperian thought.

In that case, Bavinck was not a Kuyperian. He was a friend and colleague of Kuyper, and they respected each other, but Bavinck was not a "disciple" of Abraham Kuyper. Where there was overlap in their theology, it was because they were drawing from the same sources.

BTW, I don't really see myself as coming from the "Doleantie tradition." Historically, my family has more roots in the Secession. Theologically, I also feel more affinity with that earlier Reformation. Ecclesiastically, the churches I serve trace back to the Liberation of 1944 in the Netherlands, to the Union of 1892, and from there both to the Doleantie and Secession.

 

[TylerRay]

In that case, Bavinck was not a Kuyperian. He was a friend and colleague of Kuyper, and they respected each other, but Bavinck was not a "disciple" of Abraham Kuyper. Where there was overlap in their theology, it was because they were drawing from the same sources.

BTW, I don't really see myself as coming from the "Doleantie tradition." Historically, my family has more roots in the Secession. Theologically, I also feel more affinity with that earlier Reformation. Ecclesiastically, the churches I serve trace back to the Liberation of 1944 in the Netherlands, to the Union of 1892, and from there both to the Doleantie and Secession.

Thank you again, Dr. Brendenhof; and thank you, in particular, in bearing with me in my attempts to grasp the development of the various Dutch theological traditions. As an American Presbyterian in a Scottish denomination, Dutch history and theology has taken a bit of a back seat in my studies to this point.