Bavinck and Van Til.

[jwright82]

Here's an excerpt from the book by Cory C Brock "Orthodox Yet Modern: Herman Bavinck's Use of Friedrich Schleirmacher".
Incredible book and you should get it.

"In order to construct his own precise definition of (organism) Eglinton turns to Bavinck's 1904 work ("The Christian Worldview") where Bavinck provides the closest instance, perhaps, of a primary definition of the organic.
The idea of organism is first contrasted here with the mechanistic, a closed-system monistic universe. In contradistinction, according to Bavinck, "a most profuse diversity (in the cosmos) and yet, in that diversity, there is a superlative kind of unity. (Worldviews).
The foundation for both unity and diversity is in God. Eglinton (his "Trinity and Organism" I believe) then derives four principles that guide the reader through Bavinck's organic concept: (the reason why Van Til starts with God).
1. The created order is marked by a simultaneous unity and diversity.
2. It must reflect God's identity as Three in One.
3. In this Triniform structure, "unity proceeds diversity"
4. Arguing that organicism is quite "unlike the chaos of multiformaty", unity in diversity is orchestrated by a common idea (Van Til never disagreed with this), like a synchrony (not unlike the human body) and it has a teleological defenentines of: the glory of the Triune God."

So it would seem that Van Til really did get his lingo from respectful Reformed Orthodoxy sources. I am interested in going through Vos' "Systematic Theology" to compare as well.

 

[jwright82]

Trinity and Organism in Bavinck (Or, Why Bother With Historical Theology?)

I’ve recently begun reading a fascinating work on the theology of Herman Bavinck by James Eglinton entitled Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck Organic Motif. In his…

derekzrishmawy.com

Here's a good article on Bavinck on "organic". And the book I quoted from is dealing with the "two Bavinck's thesis", which is mentioned in article.

 

[MW]

So it would seem that Van Til really did get his lingo from respectful Reformed Orthodoxy sources. I am interested in going through Vos' "Systematic Theology" to compare as well.

Excellent work! I think what the critics of Van Til are missing is the whole "worldview" thrust of modern philosophy. One now evaluates the parts in light of the whole. Which, when you think about it, is nothing more than one would expect in light of the organic teaching of Scripture that fruit grows on a tree. The system produces the outcome. No tree, no fruit.

 

[jwright82]

Excellent work! I think what the critics of Van Til are missing is the whole "worldview" thrust of modern philosophy. One now evaluates the parts in light of the whole. Which, when you think about it, is nothing more than one would expect in light of the organic teaching of Scripture that fruit grows on a tree. The system produces the outcome. No tree, no fruit.

If you haven't read that book, I think you would enjoy it. It's my reading goal this week. But you're 100 percent right.

 

[Northern Crofter]

These look like great resources - thank for sharing them! I have run into the "2 Bavincks" thesis a few times but I've never really seen it in his works (I suppose you can find anything if you are looking with a certain lens - I have seen similar approaches to Calvin). It was helpful for me early in my reading of HB to also read a really good biography (Eglinton's "Critical Biography" in my case) to understand his life and times.

 

[MW]

If you haven't read that book, I think you would enjoy it. It's my reading goal this week. But you're 100 percent right.

I will put it on my to-read list, but it might take a while to get to it.