Joel Heflin

Something for the Unreformed: The Abridged Edition of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics

2011-10-08T02:35:00.000-07:00

The English translation of Bavinck’s 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-2008) has seen quite a return for its efforts. Already there have been a small handful of conferences with more on the way, a growing number of papers and articles, even a Bavinck Society. And there’s more. John Bolt has edited an abridged version that has already received praise as a highly accessible introduction to Bavinck’s theology. And for those just outside of the ‘upper-case’ Reformed movement this volume is especially recommended for two reasons: grace and maturity.

Of so many quality volumes in systematic theology, few have tackled the problems between certainty of faith and modern cynicism with more force and maturity. For mid-career pastor’s wrestling with purpose and vision or tend to it weekly in the lives of those under their ministries, temptation to apathy runs high. Bavinck’s solution? God has spoken and it is the great work of the church to examine her confessions of faith with scripture. Bavinck never offers pat or simple answers to hard questions –although Bolt has smoothed out some of the rigor– or hides in the conclusions of a long line of scholars. “To live and die in the comfort and blessing of salvation,” writes Bavinck, “we need a word from God.” In order for the church and her ministers to move from knowledge to understanding: “faith and reason belong together.” In other words a fresh, organic approach to scripture begins with knowing that God has spoken and that ministry proceeds (or should proceed) as an expression of thankfulness and worship.

The abridgement is tidy and well managed, although sometimes it feels too polished. Dr. Bolt’s summary outlines in the larger work, which guide each section like a fine overture, have been cut and may have been equally valuable here. The abridged Reformed Dogmatics is a perfect step up from the popular Our Reasonable Faith (1956), and a step back from the four volume work; All the more reason to move forward with this excellent theology in hand.

Herman Bavinck Conference at Calvin Seminary, Oct. 12-14, 2011

2011-08-21T17:54:00.000-07:00

Calvin College is hosting the Bavinck Society's international conference this year and it should be a good one. The theme for the Bavinck conference is Reformed Theology and the Church's Global Mission Today. For more information on the conference click here, and for more info on the Bavinck Society click here.

This Reformed Life: Finding Joy in the American Religious Climate (Part 3)

2010-11-29T06:08:00.001-08:00

Making the ‘great leap’ to the reformed faith has been great for our family. But it hasn’t made things easy. In fact things are more complicated. In our search for the perfect church we’re bewildered with the numerous distinctives that flavor the reformed expression of the faith. (R. Scott Clark’s RRC is highly recommended by this blog for dealing with all that). But in this post we take a look at a small step back. This week we joined some friends at a community oriented non-denominational mega church. While it’s tempting to write this as a comedy piece – from the jaded perspective of two pastor’s kids – all we offer is the record of a single isolated experience.

My friend “Chuck” sat on the end row arms crossed in a defensive posture. The music minister invited the 1000 member congregation to raise their hearts to worship from Psalm 136 (vss 1-9) standing behind a humongous keyboard. “Chuck” is a Free Presbyterian pastor with a PhD in early English Reformed history. All the worse for “Chuck” it was his in-laws that nudged me and pointed out his sulking demeanor. The worship team opened with 3 soft rock renditions of actual Psalms. I passed a note to “Chuck” that read: see, they’re exclusive psalmists. He grimaced.

Stepping back into a contemporary worship service after months of hymns can be explained several ways, like the shock of a small towner going to the big city or going from mono to surround sound. The difficulty for us was the call to prayer and scripture reading with the constant music accompaniment. Neither of us could actually concentrate on prayer, leaving us with a vague feeling of manipulation. The sermon, however, was very good.

The message was on the problem of resisting temptation from 1 Cor. 10:13. Given the first half, or 2/3rds of the service, “Chuck” was surprised to hear an expository sermon with a pertinent exhortation to trust scripture in a very thoughtful conclusion. I was picky. I told “Chuck” it felt that ‘God’ was appealed to so frequently that the word was practically a term in the neuter. “Chuck” shrugged. Yeah, “Chuck,” but the general sway of the message for avoiding temptation became a message of personal strength and perseverance to make it through the day to day; the drama of sanctification is significantly weakened because ‘God’s’ grace and faithfulness are confined to providence. There’s no mention of the Holy Spirit’s work of inward renewal. All is not lost. “Chuck” reminded me that you can’t put everything into one sermon and that the pastor did defend all his major points with key New Testament passages rather than resort to headlines and bubble gum.

All to say that after having attended the reformed church, going back to a non-denominational was not a lapse in sanctification or a lost weekend. The reformed expression of faith is in many respects more rigorous, demanding, and sometimes loses its ‘umph’ when explaining details. But so far we’ve found that there is something more satisfying in staying with it. We’ll explain how in our next post.

Happy Reformation Day

2010-10-31T20:39:00.001-07:00

Nailed it!

This Reformed Life: Finding Joy in the American Religious Climate (Part 2)

2010-09-10T01:00:00.000-07:00

Last week we ended on the hang-up about infant baptism. Calvin shrugged. Baxter sighed. The Reformed do not see infant baptism as the automatic guarantee of salvation; it ‘simply’ means inclusion into the Covenant of Grace made possible by the application of Christ’s person and work by the Spirit through faith, and so on. Many evangelicals are hesitant to sign on with Reformed distinctive and traditions, I know; it took us forever to figure this stuff out and we’re still working on it. R. Scott Clark’s awesome book Recovering the Reformed Confession has a very helpful analogy when it comes to ‘traditional’ forms of worship and all around Christianity: Marriage. We go into marriage, says Clark, knowing full well the other person isn’t perfect in every way. Sin and snoring are not exactly the grounds for divorce or never marrying, but what would Clark say to those that don’t want a marriage that looks like their parents?

One thing I’ve been struck by most about a more confessional approach to Christian life in general is that it’s handy around the house. Our kids are at the question asking stage which is very joyful for parents and at times highly annoying. In the few moments I’m able to hide from the family I find reading the confessions provides needed material for rapid-fire questions from bright young minds. I’d even dare say the secret to reading and relating to confessional is the parent-child relationship. The confessions (and catechisms as well) seem rigid but we have to remember, it’s less about form and more about content when conveying the concepts of creation, fall, redemption, faith, hope, and love, to the most important people in our lives.

It’s all a recipe for trust. I wouldn’t burden you with this question if I didn’t consider it myself, but, does the North American church really trust itself? Can evangelicals (nationally) do any real amount of self-reflection and critical-spiritual evaluation and come away with real certainty and assurance of faith? I’m sure it can. But for all my prior religious industry I’ve come to confessional theology with a strange kind of deficiency. Not because I feel inferior or less smart, or envy their vintage horn-rimmed glasses. In terms of ecclesiology, coming to confessional theology feels like some deeply rooted dyslexia has been mended. No scolding, no guilt-trips, no inferiority complexes to address, just a settled unity between church life and home life. It’s really good stuff.

This Reformed Life: Finding Joy in the American Religious Climate (part 1)

2010-09-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

I grew up a pastor’s kid. I’ve remained a committed Christian despite the fact. And having spent the better part of the last fifteen years looking for the perfect church I’ve finally committed to the reformed expression, jumping in with both feet. In this four part series I hope to sketch out some of the highlights of this long arduous process, anticipating a full article in the forthcoming e-journal Figtree Theological Quarterly, a free 1 year subscription available by signing up here.

Having grown up Conservative Baptist and worshiping in non-denominational churches I’ve had a fairly nonchalant attitude toward the creed and confessions as a guiding principle of Sunday service. This is not my fault; formal statements can’t claim the same allegiance as scripture, says Spurgeon and the creeds hinder the creative, dynamic energy of worship, says Barth. But two things happened to change my mind about the importance of a confessional form of worship: kids.

Most non-denominational churches offer a myriad of social programs and group activities with a religious component somewhere in the mix. I’ve always had fun at these things but after a while the social component takes the place of the theological component and spiritual growth usually seems to wane. Worship service often struggled for quality content. After a while experimentation takes the place of edification. As a church-goer I constantly felt like I was being experimented on: ‘What programs do you like?’ ‘What message do you need to hear?’ ‘What’s going to make you adhere to our ministry?’ What seemed like an endless freedom for the substitution of the creeds was turning into a Sartre-like nightmare of boundless freedom.

The two theoretical strongholds keeping me from being totally Reformed were the creeds and infant baptism. These two items make the church seem like a crusty old institutional wife instead of the young, bright, sexy co-ed image that the emerging church likes to project. When taken to task on infant-baptism as a sign of Church ‘institution’ (as opposed to the vibrant, organic, pilgrim church) Calvin simply shrugged (Milner). Richard Baxter thought ‘what am I saying if I don’t baptize children?’ (Packer). So the giants have it. I’m cool with it.

Next time we pick up with the kids, confessionalism, and why becoming Reformed is so chill.

McKnight Interviews Brian McLaren

2010-08-17T19:54:00.001-07:00

Denny Burk has a post on a recent interview with Brian McLaren on 'generous orthodoxy' and questions of belief. Check it out here.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: John Owen on Hebrews 2:6

2010-08-10T10:55:00.000-07:00

Last time we caught a glimpse of the heavenly host in Revelation 11. William Cowper’s exposition crossed over to an impressive meditation and exhortation in concert with modern standards and future rewards. Having been impressed with the beatific vision which peeks behind the infinite vale of moon, stars, and sky, we marvel with the Psalmist, the Apostle, John Owen, Blaise Pascal, and Samuel Terrien: ‘What is man, that thou art mindful of him?’

Psalm 8 is a “Hymn to the Marvel of the Name,” says Terrien (Eerdmans Critical Commentary, 2003), rejoicing in the “unfolding of the theology” of God’s name as creator and re-creator. The prelude (vs. 1) and postlude (vs. 10) encapsulate the greatness and fragility of humankind contrasted with the greatness and perfection of the person and work of God. At the center of the comparison is the paradox of suffering, the enigma that God cares for his world, transcends it, yet allows catastrophic natural events to occur throughout history. Terrien summarizes the Psalm’s paradox of God’s exultation in human weakness (vs. 2) citing Pascal’s view of man as a novelty, monster, chaos, and contradiction: When human beings forget their creatureliness, writes Terrien, they move toward self-destruction.

Where Terrien’s organization is brief and concise, highlighting variants with good judgment in short space, Owen is exhaustive. Yet for all the details, citations, and Ramist subsections, the telos of the passage is more firmly comprehended in Owen than in the NIGTC. All the sources agree that Christ fulfils the dominion ascribed to ‘the son of man’ comprehended in Psalm 8, including the ‘world to come’ which is exclusive of fallen man. The whole world groans for bondage, writes Owen, and hence, “by our own observation, may easily discern that [Psalm 8]” does not respect human dominion over the earth, but Christ’s dominion over all things.” The apostle wrote “We do not yet see everything in subjection to him (ESV)” (vs. 8) but thanks to St. John’s Revelation 11:15 and some small thanks to William Cowper and Dr. Beale, our understanding and imagination have a little more foothold on what this is.

“The apostle doth not merely take it for granted that Jesus was for a little while made lower than the angels, but asserts it as proved in the testimony insisted on [Ps. 8] … And, indeed, we have here the sum of the gospel and doctrine of it, concerning the person and work of the Messiah: [1] That the salvation and deliverance that God had promised and intended to accomplish by the Messiah was spiritual and eternal from sin, death, Satan, and hell, ending in everlasting glory; not temporal and carnal, with respect unto the world and the concomitants of it in this life … [2] That this salvation could be no otherwise wrought nor brought about but by the incarnation, suffering, and death of the Messiah; not in especial by arms, war, and mighty power, as the people were of old led into Canaan under the conduct of Joshua, the captain of that salvation, as some expected yet to be saved and delivered by the Messiah.” (Owen, XIX, 356)

Owen reminds us that with a view into the theology of God’s name deep humility is required as both a required spiritual exercise and a step towards communion with God.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: William Cowper on Revelation 11:15, 16

2010-08-02T13:35:00.000-07:00

We’ve stumbled upon a real test for our trusting pre-modern exegetes. Revelation. In New Horizons in Hermeneutics Anthony Thiselton summarized the differences between pre- and post-modern attitudes for interpreting as ‘trusting’ and ‘suspicious’ of traditional readings. Our series so far has looked at how 17th c. expositors have treated difficult passages with good results in a detached, bloggy sort of way. Now, with a view of the twenty four elders sitting around the throne, we’re getting somewhere.

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15)

There is very little consensus, says G.K. Beale, on the literary outline of John’s Revelation. This affects the time line. In our passage here, the verb tenses are all past and completed meaning the time points back to the previous woe (vs. 14) or looks forward to the ‘established kingdom’ resulting in praise from the heavenly host. Either way, the passage reflects the glory and fulfillment of Christ’s priestly reign, evident from the song of the heavenly multitude.

Two interesting notes on Cowper’s exposition on verse 15. First, he ascribes the song in 15b to the angelic host, whereas Beale leans more toward the redeemed saints. Beale cites 7:9; 19:1 and 6 for support and he’s not wrong. Cowper doesn’t back his reason, but it’s easy to see where he's coming from: In Rev. chapters 4-5 Cowper sees a ‘concentric circle’ of praise starting with the elders, then the creatures, then angels, then the heavenly multitude before reaching earth and back again. Second, Beale sees the only OT reference here to Daniel 7 wherein all evil kingdoms are defeated and given to the Son of Man. Cowper is in the ballpark, comparing the doxological confessions of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:31) and Belshazzar (Dan. 5:30, 31) with the joyful host in Rev. 11:15.

In Verse 16 Cowper Id’s the elders as the saints, which Beale affirms and clarifies as “comprehending the Old and New Testament saints.” Whereas Beale’s comprehension of the literature, the presentation masterly, clear and organized, Cowper’s exposition contains that one exhortative gem that is usually missing in modern commentaries. The saint’s gestures, writes Cowper, are sitting and kneeling for worship describe two things:

I. Their rest: 2. Their quiet and peaceable estate. Now the Saints are pilgrims, wearyed many wayes, but there they rest; now they are in continual warfare, there they sit in peace and quietness. … So long as thou art here, walke with the Lord as [Enoch] did; set the Lord always in thy sight, as David did: there for thy reward, thou shalt sit hereafter for ever in his sight. O what a gaine bringeth godlinesse with it! Lord give us hearts to thinke upon it. (Cowper, 1629: 1,010)

The Problem with Perfection: Steve Wilkins and the Federal Vision

2010-07-30T13:27:00.000-07:00

The cliché it’s not perfect but… is familiar when making plans, building something, or critiquing a piece of art or whatever. It’s pragmatic, but it’s not as true as the phrase there’s nothing wrong with perfection. Perfection is the foremost problem with Steve Wilkins’ essay in The Federal Vision. It’s a perfect essay. There is very little wrong with it in terms of grammar, composition, and content. It’s highly polished, written with a commanding imperative without an overbearing sense of exhortation. His proof-texts are exceptionally well organized and supportive of his central thesis: “the foundation of all God’s dealings with man is covenant.” So what's wrong with it? It’s a reverse case of the Pauline sense of ‘strength in weakness’ and deserves a fresh review.

The outset of Wilkins’ essay attributes the woes and weakness of the modern church to ignorance and failure to understand the concept of covenant. Wilkins’ essay goes on to explain the pactum salutis and the Imagio Dei in biblical terms which maintains a robust Trinitarian and Calvinist framework. Wilkins great strength is that he manages the material in clear, non-technical language. But as a revisionist he, initially, overstates the problem which raises suspicion on the cure.

The basic criticism of the Federal Vision is that they ‘flatten’ or merge the covenant of works and the covenant of grace into a single mold: salvation by works and faith in tandem. Wilkins’ summary on the federal relationship between the first and second Adam is exceptional until pronouns come into play (esp. for Rom. 8:28-34 (pp. 56-58)). The moment election, us, and status appear as terms in the FV, the covenant becomes, simultaneously, settled and conditional. This violates the old principle that an opposite can never become the opposite of itself, but where election and reprobation are concerned it is better to clasp the mouth and stay the pen. Wilkins says as much in his conclusion (p. 66).

Wilkins does not explicitly say ‘faith without works is dead and cuts you out of covenant for good unless you maintain perfect obedience.’ But he comes close. He says, “the covenant is not unconditional. It requires persevering faithfulness.” Steve and the FV yoke that responsibility on believers, potential reprobates, and Christ alike. Talk about unequally yoked. Christians have a duty to Christ their redeemer, it's true. But faithful obedience in the life of Christ, is less of duty and more of gratitude, and needs to be treated as sanctification or works/faith becomes confused.

Ultimately Steve and the FV need to decide who is faithful: the church or Christ. Christ fulfilled all righteousness whereas the church is still working on it. For this writer it’s unfair and overreaching to suggest the Church, even the low Church, knows nothing about the covenant. ‘Works based introspection’ over covenant election is the worst remedy to stimulate any congregation to Gospel obedience and perseverance. As George W. Bethune observed (Heidelberg Catechism Qq. 20-22)

“Life under the first covenant was promised on a condition … Christ the second Adam assumed the condition in the room of his church, and by his perfect righteousness purchased, or merited for them, life. Our enjoyment of that life can, therefore depend upon no condition, but is simply bestowment on Christ’s part, and acceptance on ours” (Vol. 1:159).

The Law is not of Faith

2010-07-20T14:06:00.001-07:00

Jeffery Waddington has recently posted a review of an interesting title by P&R on Law/Gospel. Jeff's review can be found here. The book can be had here.

That’s What She Said: The Problem with Predestination in the Federal Vision (Part 2)

2010-07-20T09:27:00.000-07:00

Finitum non capax infiniti. It’s true. And it’s the first rule for undertaking the doctrine of predestination. The inaugural pages of The Federal Vision (Athanasius Press, 2004) open by addressing the controversy of election. John Barach’s deep pastoral concern over covenant predestination asks how to conduct the ministry in a way that best serves the people of God. The problem, asks Barach, is who are they? This question basically prompts the agenda of the Federal Visionaries: a view of covenant election predicated on works-faith-obedience on behalf of the foederati.

Barach’s thesis of election has three points: 1. “God has eternally predestined an unchanging number of people … to eternal glory with Christ.” 2. This, “also includes others who have not been predestined to eternal glory … but who will apostatize.” 3. “God addresses His people as a whole” regardless of their final outcome. Barach then proceeds to determine if “we” (presumably FV pastors) may address the congregation in the language of scripture as the apostles, prophets and ultimately, as God does (p. 32). The primary thrust of his argument is to encourage the elect to behave like it. As far as ‘parts of a speech’ are concerned the logical appeal collides head on with the emotional appeal (pathos) resulting in unconvincing, discouraging syllogisms: a) some are elect to glory b) some are not c) both a and b are God’s people, therefore all must fulfill the requirements of the covenant. This is unfortunate because Barach’s agonizing over the psychology of ministry is genuinely moving. At the same time it fails to convince that works are a sign of covenant election. Geerhardus Vos has the best reason why:

For the Reformed the center of gravity does not lie in justification as such … The fact that redemption is God’s work by which He wills to be glorified can in no wise be more strongly expressed than by thus exposing its emergence from out of the depths of the divine Being Himself. Her it is God who issues the requirement of redemption as God the Father. Again it is God who for the fulfillment of that requirement becomes the guarantor as God the Son. Once again, it is God to whom belongs the application of redemption as God the Holy Spirit. In the clear light of eternity, where God alone dwells, the economy of salvation is drawn up for us with pure outlines and not darkened by the assistance of human hands.

The moment works in any way, shape or form, as a condition of election, predestination becomes anthropology and loses its theological character altogether. This is not to say that works, the ethical outworking of justification in sanctification, is not important to covenant. Vos allows for works/obedience elsewhere. Yet to place works as a condition of election in God’s sovereign will or decree exclusively (as the FV appears to be doing) moves Christ away from the center of the counsel of peace (pactum salutis) and regulates the Spirit’s activity as peripheral assistance in the believer’s salvation.

Everybody Needs Somebody: The Problem with Predestination in the Federal Vision (part 1)

2010-07-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

Luther famously said, “There is much divinity in pronouns.” John Barach’s essay “Covenant and Election” in The Federal Vision (Wilkins; Garner, eds.) may be an exception. Deep within the Reformed community the Federal Vision (FV) movement have been interpreting and re-interpreting Scripture and creedal expressions in the area of justification, faith, and works, in an effort to map out covenantal identity in the clearest and strongest terms possible. If the rest of the FV is anything like my initial introduction to Barach’s essay, however, I would worry. The cause for alarm is Barach’s use of ‘we’ ‘you’ ‘they’ and ‘them’ in his discussion of election and reprobation. If there is divinity in pronouns as Luther claimed, something’s missing.

One of the more irritating problems with Barach’s essay is that his pronouns stand for universals but do not represent anyone in particular. This is hard on the reader because pronouns such as ‘we’ constantly shift from including the reader’s acceptance of the truth of election from Scripture and the creeds (p.18) to the FV’s own unique statements and interpretation. Barach almost never lets the reader know where the FV’s differences between ‘classic Reformed’ theology are actually drawn which is not so much deceptive as it is irritating.

A more serious problem with Barach’s view of election is that his analysis of election is drawn from nebulous attitudes floating around closed circles and not specific analysis and concrete sources. A “popular” view of election without a specific source describes covenant inclusions as,

“Only those whom God has predestined to eternal glory with Christ, are really in the covenant. Others may be in the sphere of the covenant. They may be in externally in the covenant or internally in the covenant. God makes no promises, then, to those who are not predestined to eternal salvation” (FV, p.20).

“You” will find all kinds of “various thinking” on election, says Barach, but he feels the previous statement is a fair and accurate description of what Calvin and the Three forms of Unity hold as the scriptural view of covenant and election.

Barach’s synthesis of Calvin and the creeds echoes another early reformed creed describing God’s dominion as,

“A right and supreme authority to determine whatever he may choose (and he cannot choose what is in its own nature evil and unjust) in respect to us and to all other things, and also in respect to those matters which no other authority can reach […] such as our thoughts […] for which he can at pleasure ordain laws, and appoint rewards and punishments” (RC, p. 25).

This is similar to the FV interpretation of what election is, but I doubt the FV would readily identify with the Racovian Catechism. This description of God’s dominion paved the way for the Socinian’s to ascribe to the Father Absolutum Dominum: supreme dominion as God to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit. To support their claims, Fausto Socinus and John Crellius worked feverishly through Scripture interpreting key words such as ‘election’ and ‘beginning’ to refer to those who ascent to the truth of God’s law and the time of the Gospel.

So far, Barach and the FV do not deny God’s foreknowledge and election the way the Socinians did to emphasize freewill and inherent righteousness. So why argue in the same way? Stay tuned.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: Nicholas Byfield on Colossians 1:21

2010-07-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

“And you hath he now also reconciled, that were in times past strangers, and enemies, because your minds were set on evil works.”

Nicholas Byfield’s (1579-1622) Exposition upon the Epistle to the Colossians (1615/1628 3rd ed.) was regarded by Spurgeon as wordy but worth consulting. He’s right on both counts. Here on Colossians 1:21 Byfield’s exposition anticipate some of the controversy over assurance of faith and the NPP that orbit each generation of the church. Byfield’s commentary on vs. 21 starts with the assertion that vv. 19, 20 describe Christ as the redeemer of the Church universal and the Colossian Church in particular. He then draws out a few (six) general considerations for application intended for any church with a Christian tag.

The profit of reconciliation, writes Byfield, “leyes in application.” Experience in meditation, the catechism, prayer and avoiding “securitie and objections (presumption, debate) is testimony to reconciliation and therefore assurance of faith. Assuming one is saved without pursuing the knowledge of Scripture is the stuff of “drowsie Protestants” and no good for anyone.

Reconciliation is a work in progress, what we today call an eschatological shift from a former way of life to a new one (Dunn, NIGCNT, p. 107). Byfield’s paragraph on the phrase also (nuni de) applies the emphatic, non-temporal meaning to the ‘corporal’ and ‘spiritual’ progress of the Kingdom for all time. Reconciliation and kingdom work are not static or achieved by repetition (although faith and the ordinances are linked together) but is instead tied to 1. Education (hearing the Gospel preached) and 2. Raising kids. “Getting within the Covenant ourselves” is in part a, ‘laboring to amend what by propagation we have marred.”

The grace of reconciliation that was originally extended to the Colossians, breaking them out of hundreds of years of dead works and alienation to God, concludes Byfield, is the same reconciliation extended to sinners that come to Christ through the ordinary means of hearing the Word and taking the ordinances rightly administered.

As to the Finding of Books ...

2010-07-02T09:30:00.000-07:00

We are loading the website with new books on a daily basis. These things take time however, so if you have a title you are looking for and don't see it, feel free to contact us.

J. Michael Theological Books: Online Now

2010-06-26T21:25:00.000-07:00

The outset of J. Michael Theological Books is based on a unique idea to provide books in a way that benefited the community of readers dedicated to Christian theology. The book is the place where people congregate and share experience. We have many unique and rare theological books ranging from old hard-to-find Puritan books to modern Bibles and current issues in Reformed/Evangelical theology. Check it out here.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: 10 for 10

2010-06-17T11:23:00.000-07:00

God does not change, Bavinck said, because he is. He is independent of time and has life in himself. To say that God becomes as pantheism assumes diminishes his character. As Bavinck’s analysis of God’s immutability moves forward to discuss God’s infinity his conclusions are reassuringly warm: God’s eternality is not static, monotonous, rigid immobility but is unlimited in virtue and creative potential. For Bavinck and the Reformed the ‘sad’ truth is that this doctrine is often far from serene and meditative, but is used as scientific fighting words within and without Christian theology. But when it comes to Bavinck’s view of time and eternity we have to ask, for argument sake, is he on the right track? While some say yes, others might say no.

Scripture affirms that God is eternal and that his being is not determined by time (Isa. 41:4; Rev. 1:8; Ps. 90:2; 93:2, et. al.) or measured by time. Bavinck defends the Scriptural view against the twin rivals of Deism and pantheism which confuse the concepts of time and eternity as mathematical quantity and not as quality: “gradual, not essential.” Deism’s own definition of eternity as time infinitely extended in two directions (past/future) is false, says Bavinck, because time serves for God’s existence. Pantheism asserts that eternity is the substantive cause of time which “pulls God down into the stream of time” (Spinoza) causing God’s existence.

Bavinck’s solution to these arguments rests mainly on Aquinas’ and Augustine’s response to Aristotle: the AAA for theological breakdowns. E.P. Heidemann observes that Bavinck sometimes relies too heavily (i.e. conveniently) on Thomas, or Aristotle.[1] Or in this case Augustine. “Time began with the creature” is a more reliable statement than vice versa: Time, whether intrinsic or extrinsic is something that can be measured and used to measure the duration of things in motion. Hence, concludes Augustine and Bavinck, there can be no time in God. Boethius (bk. V) is also brought in as supporting evidence, but, unfortunately for the reader, Bavinck does not (here) treat the Boethian problem that time violates God’s eternality (p. 163). This will eventually flare up into problems with divine foreknowledge and human freedom in Nelson Pike’s classic God and Timelessness and Paul Helm’s ample reply in Eternal God (ch. 6). For some, Bavinck’s discussion of time is out-dated but he does have the one thing that others do not.

God’s eternity is identical with his being and therefore regarded as the fullness and glory of his being. Bavinck does not often employ analogies anywhere in his work, and compared to older classical works e.g. Stephen Charnock, this keeps the discussion fresh and forward moving. Following Thomas’ analogy, God does not inhabit eternity like an idle person suffering from boredom, but like “a cheerful laborer, for whom time barely exists and days fly by.” There is difference between time and eternity but the distinction is a formal one assuming time is innate without self-existence and consciousness. God’s consciousness alone comprehends time, making time subservient to his eternal rule (1 Tim. 1:17).

[for an interesting comparison on God's eternality see Barth's CD, II.1 and his use of post-temporal language of God, pp. 629-638]

[1] This criticism centers on Bavinck’s epistemology of God’s revelation as extra and intra: revelation permeates the creation every second which, says Heidemann, comes too close to the Greek idea of the hule.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: William Cowper on 2 Cor. 5:5

2010-06-05T14:03:00.000-07:00

The old bishop of Galloway was highly commended by Spurgeon for his striking clarity and evangelical warmth. Cowper wasn’t exactly a ‘Puritan’ – he took an Episcopal bishopric after years of serving the Scottish Presbyterians. Nevertheless he maintained scripture priority over the sacrament and (expository) preaching as the means by which the Spirit normally conveys faith to believers. For Cowper, the Word, Promises, Sacraments, and Seals can make us no better in this life or the life to come except by receiving the earnest of the Spirit “into our hearts.”

A fine example of Cowper’s talent for doctrinal/practical exposition comes from his treatise: A Defiance to Death (4th ed. 1629). Defiance to death is for the most part a running commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, stopping at key words and phrases to illustrate the text with biblical and extra-biblical examples. The outset of Cowper’s argument is to address the fear of death and even find comfort in the conclusion that the life of faith finds death to be no more than “translation” and an exchange for the better (dissolution). The certainty of this is grounded in the Word, “And … we know it by the persuasion of faith, which is proper onely to Gods elect children effectually called.” This already sounds like a recipe for tensions and butting heads, so what’s the solution?

Writing on vs. 5, Who hath also given us the earnest of the Spirit , Cowper finds the substance of the Apostle’s certainty. No matter how little grace we receive, says Cowper, God shall increase it through the giving of the Spirit. From Eph. 1:13, Acts 8:27 and 10:1, the Sprit leads and directs the Church and her ministers by the grace of the Word:

“Thus we see, how God, who gives the grace, gives it by the ministry of the Word. God hath linked in one chaine all the meanes of salvation, and man should not presse to sunder them: they who call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved: but how shall thy call on him, who on whom they beleeve not? How shat they beleeve but by hearing? How shall they heare, but by preaching? & how shall men preach, except they be sent? I will not so be content with preaching, that I neglect praier, that I despise preaching: for he can never reciece grace from God, who despises the meanes by which it pleases God to give it.” (Cowper, 1629, p. 565)

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: The Bear

2010-05-25T18:55:00.000-07:00

When looking for the origin of emotion William James asked, ‘do we run from the bear because we are afraid’ or is it the other way around? For James the bear was not the source of fear but the physical response to the situation was the cause of the emotion. While it’s not exactly ‘case closed’ for James one thing is for sure: human beings respond and react to stuff. Not so with God. How so? If God were not immutable, he would not be God. But if Bavinck is going to stand with orthodoxy and defend God’s immutability he has to wrestle the bear.

The human experience of God’s wrath and love, guilt and forgiveness, presence and abandonment coupled with the texts that describe God as being, unchangeable in his own nature have lead to the doctrine of divine immutability. Following a careful exegesis of the divine name(s), Bavinck’s analysis of God’s incommunicable attributes of independence and immutability is harvested from Philo, Irenaeus and Augustine to Bernard, Anselm, and John of Damascus. The Open Theism controversy within the last decade – whose conceptual roots are aligned with ‘process’ theology rather than Arminianism (as is usually claimed within evangelical circles) would be no shock to Bavinck. For Bavinck the most serious challenge does not come within mainline orthodoxy but stems from “pantheistic criticism” from without.

For the Christian Orthodox, Pantheism is essentially like being stranded on an island facing a polar bear that over a few seasons vanishes from sight. Eventually the narrative of pantheism breaks down into a confusing labyrinth leading to vague conclusions and disappointment. We must, affirms Bavinck, rejoice in the light of scripture and hold fast the confessions.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Lost & Found

2010-05-12T23:51:00.000-07:00

There’s a TV show with a highly fantastic plot relevant to Bavinck’s formulation of God’s independence. On this show, survivors of a plane crash form tribes and collectives to solve problems and battle wits with other tribes and collectives on a supernatural island. The island itself is a character exerting powerful forces on the other players, challenging them to make hard decisions and drive mysterious agendas and sub-plots forward. There is dramatic tension between the island’s supernatural power and the character’s free-will, as they work to uncover various crimes and riddles that meet them week to week. The show’s title sums it up perfectly: Lost. Lost’s concept is a pitch perfect demonstration of the pantheistic worldview: mysterious spiritual energies conducting a select people along a chosen path, through a sacred place towards enlightenment. So where’s the fatal flaw? For Bavinck and the reformed, it’s a strange case of freedom vs. independence.

Our knowledge of God, patterned after scripture, does not limit God because it is established in him: creation is revelation and scripture affirms it. Pantheism, argues Bavinck, cannot acknowledge God’s independence from the cosmos. They say personality and self-consciousness are contradictory in a boundless being. If so then God’s perfections is the power that holds everything together and directs the cosmic order. That’s not to say God’s power and disposition change with the wind but its close.

Christian theology holds that God’s absolute being is perfect, independent (aseity) and unchangeable – attributes included. If he changed he would diminish or, from an ecological point of view, deplete. Every creature is dependent but has “a distinct existence of its own” (cf. Ps. 24:1). Self-preservation and the free agency of humankind, argues Bavinck, is a weak analogy of God’s independence but proffers enough natural proof to confirm the aseity of God according to scripture. The name of God revealed to Moses (Ex. 3:6) affirms God’s independent immutable being is full of grace: what God was to the patriarchs he will be for his people forever. Pantheism can never arrive at a description of grace or special providence in the believer’s life. When free-will is the highest virtue illumination becomes elusive and nature can only provide so many clues. It’s like a TV show running in syndication. Reruns do not add additional insight: their contents are frozen, doomed to repeat the same scenario over and over. But within the church, the activity of theology and doxology come fresh insight and new strength from the one in whom we live, move, and have our being.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Smash and Grab

2010-05-01T20:57:00.000-07:00

We’ve been sifting through some of the high points of Bavinck’s doctrine of God, offering up small, somewhat uncritical summaries of his thought. In volume two Bavinck has an almost throw-away statement that carries a cautionary tone and is even little haunting: “there is no guarantee of a better job, preferment or worldly gain that comes with the knowledge of God.” He’s correct. So why study God if there is no patent success or material fulfillment? The answer, says Bavinck, is obvious.

If theology has any object other than God for its starting point it loses its character. Bavinck has been saying this all along: the subjectivity of modern theology led to an untenable mysticism and pantheism that could not be supported by scripture or the confessions. Across the street from the Reformed, Rome has the view that grace compliments nature leaving Christ on the sidelines waiting to enter into the world and be useful. Other views are usually anthropocentric or create a dualism between God and the world that pushes him and his follower’s right out the door. This cloud is unknowing.

But God has revealed himself to humankind, argues Bavinck, sin notwithstanding. Grace has permeated the world (uniquely through Christ) and is sustained by the creator as easily as a potter shapes clay. The church is certain of this from scripture and her constant testing and validating scripture doctrine. So long as Christian dogmatics retains God as her main objective, the church will thrive in worship and in truth (Heb. 12:1-2).

Tie it all together and you have the bedrock underlying the problems between Pelagius and Augustine, Calvin and Pighius, works and imputed righteousness, repentance and participation, Christ and the world. What do you get for knowing God? Pursuing God? The answer is finding God and enjoying him, putting to bed the uncertainty that comes with not knowing if he’s ‘out there’ or finding him only in a brief moment of crisis or something like that. Put another way, pursuing God with the expectation of anything other than finding him is immediately off track and a recipe for disillusionment. What Bavinck is essentially saying is that the loss of objectivity in theology is the thing responsible for much of the confusion, disorganization and apathy that have plagued the modern era church. Yet for all that Bavinck is unmoved. God’s name and character have been revealed in scripture and testified to in nature. Next time we will undertake Bavinck’s exegesis of the Lord’s Name and a formidable challenge to the pursuit of God.

Herman Bavinck's Biography by Ron Gleason: Due out Soon!

2010-04-19T12:56:00.000-07:00

Ron Gleason’s new biography, Herman Bavinck: Pastor, Churchman, Statesman, Theologian (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publications, 512 pps., $29.99, paperback, available May 31, 2010) is a warm and inviting portrait of one Holland’s most influential Reformed theologians. Bavinck’s theology is rigorous yet deeply concerned with the quality of the life of faith and Gleason’s book captures that Bavinckian vitality with great acumen. Gleason’s prose is highly accessible and enjoyable reading, which should satisfy the academic and the casual reader. Anyone who has struggled with the tensions between the sophistication of modern life and a strict Christian upbringing will highly prize this biography.

Gleason starts out with the pious background of the Bavinck family. The story centers predominantly on Herman’s father Jan and his pastoral vocation. Gleason’s sympathetic narrative reads like many classic evangelical biographies such as Iain Murray on Pink and Edwards or William Arnot’s Life of the Rev. James Hamilton. Gleason occasionally glosses over some detail with high praise for the strong ideals and values of the Bavincks ministry and home life but the ample footnotes keep the reader on task. Yet Gleason does not go entirely overboard either, presenting the differences between the HK and CRC in a fair and accurate light. Gleason’s ability to remain objective throughout when presenting sensitive issues such as Bavinck’s transition to Kampen, the Bavinck / Kuyper debate on presumptive regeneration and the fallout of the Groningen Synod (1899) is impressive.

Bavinck is all about balancing tensions and so is Gleason. One of the chapters that I felt personally closest to was Bavinck’s first and only pastorate at Franeker (Chapter 4). Bavinck faced all the dilemmas awaiting a young pastor: the work load, congregation politics, and faithfulness to scripture in a dry, positivist climate. According to Gleason, Franeker had a string of pastors that did virtually nothing to benefit the spiritual wellbeing of the congregation yet Bavinck handled his situation with remarkable grace and humility, which I found surprising.. Gleason’s depiction of Bavinck as scholar and pastor is well rounded and multi-dimensional; presenting a man of high principles and a guy you could have coffee with.

“Bavinck has been for me,” writes Gleason, “an inspiration and a challenge. His grasp of theology in all its dimensions, his thoroughness and fairness in dealing with those whom he did not agree ... his architectural gift in perceiving doctrine in its correlation with the Christian view as a whole … are some of the excellencies that characterize his work throughout.” Gleason has certainly captured the character and career of this essential theologian in a rare non-stuffy, non-boring lucid biography. We highly recommend this book especially to young pastors and seminarians worried about the great divide between the academy and the church, evangelism and a gospel-centered family. Gleason’s book is available May 31, 2010 from P&R Publications. Pray for hardcover.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Rocket Science for all God’s Children

2010-04-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

Creation, says Bavinck, is a revelation of God. There is not a corner of the universe that does not reflect something of his glory. But creation does not reveal God’s perfections like they do in Christ. There are distinctions and gradations throughout creation from the archetype to the ectype. The incarnation of the suffering servant finds his parallel in, “the servant form of written language (1:354),” that is, in scripture. For Bavinck, God’s name and attributes are revealed generally in the world and specifically in Scripture with this insistence: revelation has distinctions but are never suspended outside of time and history. Thus the Reformed tradition has tried its best to discuss God’s attributes as communicable and incommunicable. The thing that matters most, says Bavinck is to hold firmly God’s transcendence and “kinship” with the world.

There are many names given for God across an array of folk and scientific thinking and experience. God does not need a name because there’s no comparison. Citing W. Robinson Smith’s classic work on Semitic religion, “the Semites loved to call God “Lord or King” because they felt completely dependent upon him; names were not used for philosophical theory but were relational. The revelation of the tetragrammaton to Israel proves that God is more than the “one who is.” He is the “Unchangeable One, (faithful), the eternally Self-consistent One, who never leaves or forsakes his people but always again seeks out and saves his own.” His grace, love, and assistance are unchanging because he is so in himself.

Next time we will look pause to consider what Bavinck is up to.

Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: Being There

2010-04-08T07:24:00.000-07:00

Any religion that first had to prove its god existed prior to worship is impoverished from the get go. Bavinck has demonstrated from an array of philosophical and theological authors that God’s essence cannot be grasped by (critical) reason, morals or ethics. Some have left God in the dark. Others have split God’s revelation between ethics and the rest of the universe with unfortunate results. Bavinck says no way. The God who reveals himself in ethics (the kingdom) is the maker of heaven and earth. Therefore distinctions are not the same as contradictions. Bavinck does not like the term ‘proofs’ for God’s existence, abstract terms such as ‘absolute,’ ‘sovereign’ or ‘supreme’ being are only tolerable. What’s the solution? Everything.

The space between pantheism and rationalism is a description of God as absolute personal being. “Absolute being, who alone has being in himself,” says Bavinck, is the best description of God and preferable above “personality, love, fatherhood and so forth, because it encompasses all of God’s attributes in an absolute sense.” Such a statement affirms God is perfect in wisdom, knowledge, holiness, love, and justice. According to pantheism, God loses distinction between himself and the cosmos. In rationalism God is often reduced to the ‘Y’ carried over in an equation. Neo-platonists sometimes switch between the masculine and neuter pronoun for God because he is a variable without definite character. If scripture is true, says Bavinck, Christian theology can discuss God’s being and attributes with certainty. The enormous problems and questions Bavinck raises here on knowing God is the stuff of personal growth. Next time we will explore Bavinck’s analysis on the Scripture names for God and their interpretation within and without Christian dogmatics.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: William Fenner on Lam. 3:57

2010-03-16T09:57:00.000-07:00

Walter Brueggemann once said, “When we pray we participate in the ultimate act of humanness as we yield to a power greater than ourselves.” There is a faint echo of Brueggemann’s statement in William Fenner’s (1600 – 1640) treatise on prayer: The Sacrifice of the Faithful … shewing the nature property, and efficacy of Zealous Prayer: Together with … some helps against discouragements in Prayer (1657). Fenner has wowed us with poignant homilies and exegetical acumen on difficult passages while paying close attention to textual variants, grammar and syntax and so on. But here we have an example of what some might criticize as mere proof-texting: a text at the head of a sermon used to support the minister’s agenda. But as Fenner would say, To err is human but to pray in a season of loss, devastation, and humility requires divine assistance.

Perhaps there is no better place to discuss prevailing prayer than from the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Fenner’s treatment of Lam. 3:57 does not gloss a ho-hum exhortation to prayer. If anything, Fenner strips the varnish off his message with a brief historical introduction of the text followed by three key points leading to the doctrine. “This book of Lamentations,” writes Fenner, “doeth plainely shew what miseries and distresses sin is the cause of” within the context of the Babylonian captivity. Fenner suggests that years of national prayer were counted as one (in the day that I called) and that God heard all their prayers (Thou drewest neare in the day). Delitzsch notes this verse, found in Ps. 145:18, is uttered as the experience of all believers. Reyburn and Fry confirm the reading as the verb (qariba) demonstrates a movement closing in the space from the speaker’s perspective. All of which lends itself the doctrine Fenner is handling: that an effectual prayer is an insatiable prayer:

“This is the first and prime thing that the soule looks after, it being the very end of prayer to be heard; it is not with prayer as with Oratory; for in Oratory; a man may use all the perswasive arguments that the wit of man can invent, and speak as cuttingly, and as perswasively as may be, and yet the heart may be so intractable as not to be perswaded; it is not so with prayer … The end of prayer is to prevaile with God … A man that never gotten the end of his prayers, till he hath gotten that he prayed for.” (Fenner, 1657, 266)

No sin so devlish, no sin so rooted, no country, writes Fenner, so devastated that the godly soul does not press God for a reply.

The Puritan Exegesis Project: Thomas Manton on Daniel 7:13, ‘The Son of Man’

2010-03-13T13:46:00.000-08:00

Rudolph Bultmann famously asked, “Is exegesis without presuppositions possible?” Many Biblical scholars since have made clean distinctions between exegesis and eisegesis, sometimes for good reason. Aichele and Phillips (Semenia vols. 69-70) contrast Bultmann’s statement with the discipline of intertextuality: they maintain that the distinction between exegesis/eisegesis is too sharp, incapacitating scholars and ministers who rely on religious texts to express meaning and identify with their authors.

In a sermon on Hebrews 11:5 Thomas Manton (1620-1677) makes a one-to-one correspondence with Enoch’s translation and Christ’s ascension. “In Adam God would give the world a pledge of the fruit of sin, which is death; and in Enoch God would give a pledge of the fruit of holiness; and that is immortality and eternal life.” The proof is Christ’s taking human nature to heaven in the ascension, and leaving us with His Spirit in pledge of the promise (John 8:51). The interpretive question here is: can Manton read his NT doctrine of the ascension onto the OT texts, Gen. 5:24 and Dan. 7:13?

To prove that heaven will perfect human nature and communion with God Manton cites Dan. 7:13: “One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days and they brought him near before him.” Aben Ezra and many rabbinic interpreters take ‘son of man’ to be Israel. But others, both Jewish and Christian alike, take the phrase to represent the Messiah based on extensive OT and NT references, and R. Ezra’s supporting text (vs. 27 cf. 24) is not compelling. On the other hand it can refer to a ‘congregation’ of human-like figures opposed to the animal-like figures used elsewhere in the apocalyptic text.

Manton’s reading of Dan. 7:13 is striking and unique. With the reference to the Messiah on one hand and the congregation of the faithful on the other, Manton organizes a cluster of NT texts around Dan. 7:13 to cement the ascension of Christ as fact and promise to the believer’s transmission to heaven.

“As soon as the soul departs out of the body you shall be carried by the angels in triumph to Christ. Believer’s have the same entertainment which Christ had. Christ was welcomed to heaven with acclamations (Dan. 7:13). He was ‘brought’ that is, by a train of angels, and there conducted and welcomed [him] to heaven with a Well done, and well suffered for the souls of men! So shall your souls be carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom, Luke 16:22. Why into Abraham’s bosom? Christ himself was not yet ascended … but you shall be carried into Christ’s bosom. Look, as God did as it were take Christ by the hand when he ascended, therefore it is said, Acts 2:33, ‘Being by the right hand of God exalted.’ It principally notes the power of the divine majesty: but it is an allusion to the entertainment we give to a friend or guest we would welcome … so will Christ entertain you.”

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Herman of Damascus

2010-03-10T21:26:00.000-08:00

The inability to know God’s essence is not a puzzle to be solved. It is instead the motive of worship and adoration. Bavinck saw the best minds of his generation destroyed by madness attempting to find God without the aid of sense-mediated signs and signifiers. For them the result was agnosticism steeped in a rejection of all metaphysical inquiry. So how does a dogmatician outfox the philosopher? Remain objectively certain, or as Bavinck says: stick to your guns.

Karl Barth said that “back to,” is not a good slogan for dogmatics. All science must move forward. Problem is how to do it in a positive climate that rejects all metaphysical investigation. The rationalism in favor of innate ideas confuses the light of reason with revelation. We have potential to grow in knowledge (all of which is mediate) but the concepts themselves are not innate. Granted, argues Bavinck, things are grasped because they are apprehended only in God (Malebranche) and in the soul by recollection (Plato). Natural theology cannot equal ‘revealed’ religion (illumination/inspiration) because it’s a reflection of the work of God in creation: if it’s natural it cannot be the product of human reason. In that limited sense the world does not take us away from God but leads us to him.

Bavinck’s analysis is dense but his ability to navigate wildly competitive views of is profound. If God’s incomprehensibility without the Church leans towards pantheism; within the Church an overemphasis on contemplation assumes the highest value as authentic religious experience. For Bavinck the priority on the inner life leads to mysticism and withdrawal from the world. Yet when Christians perform theology they are rooted firmly in the understanding that God’s essence is unknowable and that all figures of speech borrowed from experience speaks to higher things (John of Damascus). Next week Bavinck begins his investigation into the names of God.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Where There’s a Will

2010-03-03T10:17:00.000-08:00

Last week Bavinck led us onto the negative path to knowing God. Even in the modern age, John Lloyd has humorously noted that we can’t see anything that matters. We know little about the world and we know even less about God. In Bavinck’s day the doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility tended to agnosticism (Hegel) or a theology equal to anthropology (Fichte). What is gained by the ‘recovery’ of God’s incomprehensibility? Peace that passes understanding? Inexpressible joy? Bavinck can’t wait to find out.

Theology since scholasticism lost the impact of God’s incomprehensibility. Philosophy took it up especially in the thinking of Kant and Hegel. For Kant, God’s being is lost in the critique of pure reason because, “the soul, the world, and God cannot be objectively demonstrated.” Attributing intellect and will to God is “practical knowledge” but adds nothing to the volume of human science. Hegel attempted to strip the concept of God from all sense-related forms but ran aground in the claim that, “a sense-related representation could never be overcome in the idea of God and therefore (Hegel) ended up in atheism.” Atheism usually retreats to agnosticism, says Bavinck, because Hegel reasoned that “our God-consciousness is nothing other than God’s self-consciousness. God exists to the extent that he is known by us.” Man, the measure of all things infinite. So what’s the solution?

Bavinck suggests that negative predicates (“God is unknowable, beyond comprehension, etc.) carry real weight but they “prove too much.” The world is, after all, knowable and positive predicates of God’s character and personality are grounded in revelation. Can Christians ascribe to God a personality and maintain that he is absolute? Bavinck says yes, “Our knowledge does not limit God because 1. It is grounded in him, 2. Can only exist through him,” and if absoluteness of God’s being (according to pantheism/rationalism) precludes all limitation, “it is equally wrong (for rationalism) to call him absolute, unity, good, and essential being.” God’s self-consciousness is as deep and rich as his being, meaning that his self-consciousness is not dependent on non-being or the competent grasp of finite beings to maintain existence. Mystery is not the same as ‘self-contradiction.’

The trick here is to illustrate what Bavinck is saying without using an unhelpful analogy. Suppose that agnosticism is saying, ‘Look. You theologians are giving God a personality which you can’t do anymore than you can give a personality to gravity or math.’ But [Reformed] theology is not ascribing personality to God in the same way personality is applied socially to other humans. We are not looking at God’s personality the same way we look at and admire a good actor who’s played the hero, the villain, and the comic relief. It’s like saying God has to be famous to exist. But this would mean God’s celebrity has to fit the mold of celebrity culture which drags God down to the level of finite being. The tension here between faith and rationalism is very important because it’s about redirecting the love of the creature to the love of God. Next week Bavinck tackles the problem of innate ideas and the faint notions of greater things.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: Learned Ignorance

2010-02-24T09:40:00.000-08:00

Dogmatics takes for its starting point the certainty of God’s existence. Everything else is details. For Bavinck the outset of Christian theology has one thing in common with the long history of critical reflection on God’s existence: he is unknowable. But nonattainability of the knowledge of God is not the same as nothing. As long as scripture remains objectively center we worship whom we know.

The greatest dangers to theology are words and a devaluation of mystery. If theology becomes an exercise of rhetoric or replaces its objective vision (revelation) for the subjective impression (positivism) theology degenerates into anthropology (Fichte). The evolutionary theory in Bavinck’s day, for example, held that YHWH was a Hittite mountain God adopted by the Hebrews and localized on Mt. Sinai. But God is represented as the Creator (Gen. 2:4b) and “descends” from heaven at the scene of Babel (Gen. 11:5, 7) and “accompanies” Abraham and Jacob on their journeys. Point is, concludes Bavinck, that Old Testament revelation is preparatory, external in nature, “it does indeed furnish true and reliable knowledge of God, but not a knowledge that exhaustively corresponds to his being.” Signs of his presence are darkness (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:22; 1 Kg. 8:12; 2 Chron. 6:1) possibly to show that natural light does not represent his brilliance.

Who is lost in the cloud of unknowing? From Plotinus to Erigena negative expressions of God’s being are more accurate though less satisfying. Scholasticism expressed God’s attributes in great detail but lost incomprehensibility in the shuffle. The Lutheran and Reformed, says Bavinck, lost sight of the significance of the doctrine yet the Remonstrant/Socinian wing did much worse, “Eternal life, they maintained [Rationalism/Socinianism] does not consist of knowing God but in doing his will.” Who God is becomes unimportant.

Next week we will look at Bavinck’s analysis of God’s incomprehensibility in the shift from theology to philosophy.

Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: The Grand Scheme of Things

2010-02-21T20:06:00.000-08:00

“Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics” are Bavinck’s opening words to the doctrine of God. Even when a confirmed believer moves past the sophomore debates of faith v reason and proofs for God’s existence faith, moving toward understanding, faces the incompressibility of knowing God. The great question here at the outset of our journey is: How is reading Bavinck anymore of a help?

The tensions between modern life’s this-world scientific orientation and the pietistic other-worldly contemplation was a concern Bavinck was a pains to address. These two worldviews have inherent dangers to genuine faith; the former slips easily into asceticism and solitude while the other degenerates into, “cold Pelagianism and unfeeling moralism.” These issues, warns Bavinck, directly affect worship and the quality of religious life for those around us.

Bavinck writes with the conviction that God has certainly spoken and revealed himself to the creation from within and without. This is no mere academic exercise: God’s revelation is personal, inviting faith and communion with him through Christ and the Spirit. Our series continues with Bavinck’s view of God’s incomprehensibility right here, next week.