Bavinck on the existence of sin

[sotzo]

I'm reading through Bavinck's dogmatics Volume 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ. (BTW, thank you, thank you, thank you to the translators who made it possible for me to delve into Bavinck!)

In Chapter I, page 64 he says:
"For even when [God] wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it...he willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes. If he had not allowed it to exist there would always have been a rationale for the idea that he was not in all his attributes superior to a power whose possibility was inherent in creation itself."

For brevity in stating my questions (see qtns below), I will number Bavinck's statements as follows wthin my questions. Please let me know, as well, if you do not think I have been thorough enough on the amount of context I've given:

1. For even when [God] wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it
2. he willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes.
3. If he had not allowed it to exist there would always have been a rationale for the idea that he was not in all his attributes superior to a power whose possibility was inherent in creation itself.

Qtns

1. Statements 1 and 2 seem to add up to the statement that "sin brings glory to God" which is certainly a biblical statement on the basis of Romans 3, particularly verse 8. Would it be appropriate to also include Jesus' miracles, especially his healing miracles / raising of Lazarus / etc, to be included under the biblical evidence for Bavinck's statements 1 and 2..Jesus reversed the effects of sin and brought glory to the Father in a way that would not have been possible apart from sin's presence in the world?
2. Should Bavinck have left it there and not proceeded to statement 3? I can't think of a biblical basis for the conclusion that God willed sin to be possible so that man would not question whether he was superior to its possibility....does anybody know a basis for that conclusion?

Peace,
Joel

 

[JKLeoPCA]

I'm reading through Bavinck's dogmatics Volume 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ. (BTW, thank you, thank you, thank you to the translators who made it possible for me to delve into Bavinck!)

In Chapter I, page 64 he says:
"For even when [God] wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it...he willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes. If he had not allowed it to exist there would always have been a rationale for the idea that he was not in all his attributes superior to a power whose possibility was inherent in creation itself."

For brevity in stating my questions (see qtns below), I will number Bavinck's statements as follows wthin my questions. Please let me know, as well, if you do not think I have been thorough enough on the amount of context I've given:

1. For even when [God] wants there to be evil, he only wants it in a way that is holy: though using it, he never commits it
2. he willed it so that in it and against it he might bring to light his divine attributes.
3. If he had not allowed it to exist there would always have been a rationale for the idea that he was not in all his attributes superior to a power whose possibility was inherent in creation itself.

Qtns

1. Statements 1 and 2 seem to add up to the statement that "sin brings glory to God" which is certainly a biblical statement on the basis of Romans 3, particularly verse 8. Would it be appropriate to also include Jesus' miracles, especially his healing miracles / raising of Lazarus / etc, to be included under the biblical evidence for Bavinck's statements 1 and 2..Jesus reversed the effects of sin and brought glory to the Father in a way that would not have been possible apart from sin's presence in the world?
2. Should Bavinck have left it there and not proceeded to statement 3? I can't think of a biblical basis for the conclusion that God willed sin to be possible so that man would not question whether he was superior to its possibility....does anybody know a basis for that conclusion?

Peace,
Joel

I'm no expert on Bavinck, but would be happy to offer a few thoughts.

As to your first question I think you are able to include the works of Christ in with the 1st and 2nd statements. I would say it is closely associated with what we find in John's gospel.

And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.
--John 9:2,3 (ESV)

The first two points also line up well with the WCF on Providence. Yet not being exactly familiar with Bavinck I cannot say if he elsewhere discusses these things to a different degree, I can only answer for what you have posted on his behalf.

As to the third point and your third question, it seems to be an arguement from logic and not exactly from scripture. I read his third point this way. That, if God never let sin loose, so that it might be crushed one day, there might have been a lingering idea in Adam that there was an equal but opposite power out there somewhere. If there was such a power, then which of the two would prove to be the greater. So being sin was let loose, then it is obviously shown to be a weeker power in relation to God who is superior to all things. So the question and third point is one of curiosity that would have resided (possibly) within the mind of Adam had no fall occured. That is my understading of what you posted from Bavinck. I hope it helps.

Numbers 6:24-26

 

[sotzo]

John:

Many thanks for the response and very helpful too.

On point 3, I still don't see how it follows necessarily from Scripture that Adam would have had this dilemma over what was more powerful, God or sin...especially since it would only be the potential for sin that would be compared to God in Adam's mind.

My main reason for getting to the bottom of this is not to speculate, but to determine if perhaps Bavinck is taking freedoms with exegesis that I may need to watch out for as I continue to read his volumes.

Thanks Again

 

[JKLeoPCA]

John:

Many thanks for the response and very helpful too.

On point 3, I still don't see how it follows necessarily from Scripture that Adam would have had this dilemma over what was more powerful, God or sin...especially since it would only be the potential for sin that would be compared to God in Adam's mind.

My main reason for getting to the bottom of this is not to speculate, but to determine if perhaps Bavinck is taking freedoms with exegesis that I may need to watch out for as I continue to read his volumes.

Thanks Again

His quote does not seem to suggest that he is speaking from Scripture. I do not believe he is taking liberties with exegesis, being there is no passage about what Adam would have been thinking about had he not fallen. He is left to prove the "necessarily," in his statement. It's like asking other questions of speculation about pre-fall life. What was Pre-fall curiosity like? How many hours a day did Adam consider the tree or the command not to do something? Could Adam have really understood what the threat of death meant?

Bavinck's third statement alone is not provable, because there is no scripture to answer his claim of what pre-fall Adam would have been thinking had he not sinned, within or past the probation period. But the opposite of His statement proves true, in that because evil was allowed to exist, God's attributes did prove to be superior to the power of sin and death, and was no longer just a "possibility" of a bad use of freewill, but was really manifest.