What do you think?
Rate this book
Reformed Dogmatics #1
Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1 : Prolegomena
In partnership with the Dutch Reformed Translation Society, Baker Academic is proud to offer the first volume of Herman Bavinck's complete Reformed Dogmatics in English for the very first time.
Bavinck's approach throughout is meticulous. As he discusses the standard topics of dogmatic theology, he stands on the shoulders of giants such as Augustine, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge. This masterwork will appeal to scholars and students of theology, research and theological libraries, and pastors and laity who read serious works of Reformed theology.
Bavinck's approach throughout is meticulous. As he discusses the standard topics of dogmatic theology, he stands on the shoulders of giants such as Augustine, John Calvin, Francis Turretin, and Charles Hodge. This masterwork will appeal to scholars and students of theology, research and theological libraries, and pastors and laity who read serious works of Reformed theology.
688 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2003
243 people are currently reading
1128 people want to read
About the author
Herman Bavinck
113 books197 followersHerman Bavinck (1854-1921) succeeded Abraham Kuyper as professor of systematic theology at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1902.
His nephew was Johan Herman Bavinck.
His nephew was Johan Herman Bavinck.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews
December 19, 2019
A phenomenal achievement both in the original preparation and the subsequent translation. This is the product of a prodigious mind in service to God and the church. Parts here and there were for me a bit of a slog, but this was due mainly to my limited knowledge of and interest in the history of modern philosophy and theology. On the whole the book is brilliant, a rare and precious gift.
May 8, 2021
This book was excellent. Bavinck embodies the Reformed catholic ethos and rigor that we need in our own century.
He is charitable and models humility at every turn. And yet the scope he covers is astounding.
I felt like this prolegomena was the unwritten footnotes to my covenant theology class at my seminary.
We can know God truly even if not inexhaustibly. Knowing is objective and subjective. Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics. God has spoken and he can be trusted. God reveals himself so that we will worship him.
He is charitable and models humility at every turn. And yet the scope he covers is astounding.
I felt like this prolegomena was the unwritten footnotes to my covenant theology class at my seminary.
We can know God truly even if not inexhaustibly. Knowing is objective and subjective. Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics. God has spoken and he can be trusted. God reveals himself so that we will worship him.
December 23, 2014
I'm hoping to try to finish the set before the end of 2015.
Remarkable. Astonishing breadth of sources with a pastoral focus. It maybe goes without saying, but a rich Prolegomena like this ought to be required reading for all pastors and students. Maybe not Bavinck, but *something*; but oh that I wish they would read Bavinck!
Remarkable. Astonishing breadth of sources with a pastoral focus. It maybe goes without saying, but a rich Prolegomena like this ought to be required reading for all pastors and students. Maybe not Bavinck, but *something*; but oh that I wish they would read Bavinck!
January 30, 2025
To be honest, I don’t have my head fully wrapped around the beliefs of the cast of 19th century theologians Bavinck interacts with, but it’s clear to me that the same arguments—that truth is only discovered through empiricism or emotion or moral certainty (justice)—are still alive and well today. With clarity and spiritual vigor, Bavinck makes the case that truth is what the Holy Spirit reveals by his Word and to the eyes of faith. That’s the only sure and good foundation for our perception, thinking, feeling, and actions.
June 3, 2012
A few years ago, I read two of the volumes from Will Durant's "The Story of Civilization" series. I loved their epic flavor and grand vision in to so much specific details of history!
Well, in the area of Prolegomena (first things) and Reformed dogma, Bavinck creates the same kind of panorama, a beautiful landscape of the history and significance of each of the major schools and philosophers and theologians and how they have affected the church throughout history. The detail is rich, the scope is well presented and clearly thought out, and the "ride" is fabulous!
In addition to the historical component, Bavinck clearly and specifically delineates a presuppositional and Reformed Christian dogma that is detailed and understandable. His insight that religion by necessity must be based upon revelation, and not upon an intellectual rationalism, nor a demonstrable empiricism, is an important distinction that is all too easily dismissed today by those who incorrectly want to make the knowledge of God to be something that can be independently reasoned or derived, or something that is independently measurable.
A word of caution: This volume is heavy reading. I spent much time and slow going at first, and was confused by all the laundry lists of names and schools of thought. After much effort and a conscious decision to highlight individuals and concepts in distinct highlighter colors, I found that the individuals became easier to understand and relate to, and the concepts also began to fit with each other in useful and understandable ways ... further reading since then has progressed at a much faster clip!
Well, in the area of Prolegomena (first things) and Reformed dogma, Bavinck creates the same kind of panorama, a beautiful landscape of the history and significance of each of the major schools and philosophers and theologians and how they have affected the church throughout history. The detail is rich, the scope is well presented and clearly thought out, and the "ride" is fabulous!
In addition to the historical component, Bavinck clearly and specifically delineates a presuppositional and Reformed Christian dogma that is detailed and understandable. His insight that religion by necessity must be based upon revelation, and not upon an intellectual rationalism, nor a demonstrable empiricism, is an important distinction that is all too easily dismissed today by those who incorrectly want to make the knowledge of God to be something that can be independently reasoned or derived, or something that is independently measurable.
A word of caution: This volume is heavy reading. I spent much time and slow going at first, and was confused by all the laundry lists of names and schools of thought. After much effort and a conscious decision to highlight individuals and concepts in distinct highlighter colors, I found that the individuals became easier to understand and relate to, and the concepts also began to fit with each other in useful and understandable ways ... further reading since then has progressed at a much faster clip!
October 28, 2019
Incredibly good.
The start of this volume was a slog, particularly the history of theology section--due to long series of lists of names. But even in that section, much helpful orienting to the task of theology.
Bavinck excels at addressing and diagnosing the errors of higher-criticism and pietism in his view of Scripture and doctrine. He also excels at addressing objections to the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture in such a way that makes clear you don't have to be an academic in order to know you can trust the Bible.
This is a great example of serious biblical scholarship done with a view towards serving and building up the church. His theological method shows a careful appreciation of the Christian tradition as a whole, and is careful in showing how theology ought to be done--under the authority of the full counsel of Scripture. I finished it, and I have been made to think more deeply and carefully, and been led to worship and glorify Christ more because of it.
The start of this volume was a slog, particularly the history of theology section--due to long series of lists of names. But even in that section, much helpful orienting to the task of theology.
Bavinck excels at addressing and diagnosing the errors of higher-criticism and pietism in his view of Scripture and doctrine. He also excels at addressing objections to the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture in such a way that makes clear you don't have to be an academic in order to know you can trust the Bible.
This is a great example of serious biblical scholarship done with a view towards serving and building up the church. His theological method shows a careful appreciation of the Christian tradition as a whole, and is careful in showing how theology ought to be done--under the authority of the full counsel of Scripture. I finished it, and I have been made to think more deeply and carefully, and been led to worship and glorify Christ more because of it.
January 9, 2026
This first volume is outstanding, and it’s hard to imagine volumes 2-4 being better—although I’m sure they are. Bavinck’s insights on the history and nature of dogma, and his work in Protestant/Catholic comparison of dogma and apologetics was particularly outstanding. His chapters on general/special revelation were illuminating and clarifying. He has brilliant sections on the relationship between religion and science; faith and certainty/reason. However most of all I loved his chapter on the attributes of Scripture, which I scrawled all over. I learned so much from this book, and can’t wait to read the rest of this work.
Read
November 22, 2024Amazing how relevant this volume remains. Really helpful starting place and a great reference book.
No Grade. Classic.
No Grade. Classic.
September 20, 2014
Bavinck’s project consists of drawing upon the strengths of the Magisterial Protestants while formulating theology in response to the modernist crisis of his day. To do so, he realized he could not slavishly mimic older platitudes and simply “hope for the best.” Bavinck represents a very exciting yet somewhat embarrassing hero for modern Calvinists. Exciting, because his work is simply awesome and coming into English for the first time ever. Embarrassing, because modern Calvinists generally dislike the movement “neo-Calvinism,” yet Bavinck is the unofficial godfather of it.
Bavinck takes the traditional terminology of principia, yet in the background is an ever-present urgency to respond to modernism. Therefore, he takes the terminology and reframes it around the neo-Calvinist slogan, “Grace restores Nature.” There is an antithesis and dualism, to be sure, but it is not between nature and grace, but sin and grace.
Principia
God himself is the principle of existence for theology (principium essendi). Objective revelation of God in Christ is recorded in the Scriptures and this is the external source of knowledge (externum principium cognoscendi). The Holy Spirit is the iternal source of knowledge. This leads Bavinck to a line he repeats throughout the book: there must be a corresponding internal organ to receive the external revelation. This anticipates the later Reformed Epistemology school.
Contrary to the convertskii, everyone’s reception and evaluation of his or her ultimate authority will be subjective in some sense. One often hears the refrain, “You Protestants make yourself the Pope and judge of authority while we simply submit to the Church.” Unfortunately, at one time this convertskii had to make a decision–using his own sinful Western-influenced reason–between Rome, EO, Assyrian Orthodoxy, Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Whatever the external source of knowledge-the Church, God’s Revelation, etc.–the religious subject will have to respond to it. Since the subject is responding, the response and evaluation is, quite naturally, subjective. Bavinck hits a grand slam on this point.
Circular Reasoning and First Principles
Bavinck does not try to hide the fact of circular reasoning. He asserts, quite rightly, that first principles in any science are by definition circular. If they were proven by other principles, they would not be first principles! With this acknowledged, Romanism and Orthodoxy are in no better position than Protestantism. Positing either the Pope or the Church as the external principle of knowledge is highly laughable–and bears witness to my argument given that few even try to do that.
Towards the Future of Reformed Epistemology and Apologetics
It’s obvious that Van Til read Bavinck. It is also obvious, if perhaps less so, that the Reformed Epistemologists follow in Bavinck’s train. It’s interesting that while Van Til drew heavily from Bavinck, I don’t think they are always saying the same thing on apologetics. Bavinck used the categories of presuppositionalism, but he knew when to stop the train. I think he kept himself from many of what would later be some of Van Til’s errors, or at least weak points.
Criticisms
The book isn’t always easy to read. If the reader does not have a background heavy in European Rationalism, many of Bavinck’s sparring partners will be over one’s head. Conversely, if one does have such a background in those disciplines, then there is little point to read Bavinck on them, since he is merely given a cursory reading of them.
Bavinck takes the traditional terminology of principia, yet in the background is an ever-present urgency to respond to modernism. Therefore, he takes the terminology and reframes it around the neo-Calvinist slogan, “Grace restores Nature.” There is an antithesis and dualism, to be sure, but it is not between nature and grace, but sin and grace.
Principia
God himself is the principle of existence for theology (principium essendi). Objective revelation of God in Christ is recorded in the Scriptures and this is the external source of knowledge (externum principium cognoscendi). The Holy Spirit is the iternal source of knowledge. This leads Bavinck to a line he repeats throughout the book: there must be a corresponding internal organ to receive the external revelation. This anticipates the later Reformed Epistemology school.
Contrary to the convertskii, everyone’s reception and evaluation of his or her ultimate authority will be subjective in some sense. One often hears the refrain, “You Protestants make yourself the Pope and judge of authority while we simply submit to the Church.” Unfortunately, at one time this convertskii had to make a decision–using his own sinful Western-influenced reason–between Rome, EO, Assyrian Orthodoxy, Monophysitism and Nestorianism. Whatever the external source of knowledge-the Church, God’s Revelation, etc.–the religious subject will have to respond to it. Since the subject is responding, the response and evaluation is, quite naturally, subjective. Bavinck hits a grand slam on this point.
Circular Reasoning and First Principles
Bavinck does not try to hide the fact of circular reasoning. He asserts, quite rightly, that first principles in any science are by definition circular. If they were proven by other principles, they would not be first principles! With this acknowledged, Romanism and Orthodoxy are in no better position than Protestantism. Positing either the Pope or the Church as the external principle of knowledge is highly laughable–and bears witness to my argument given that few even try to do that.
Towards the Future of Reformed Epistemology and Apologetics
It’s obvious that Van Til read Bavinck. It is also obvious, if perhaps less so, that the Reformed Epistemologists follow in Bavinck’s train. It’s interesting that while Van Til drew heavily from Bavinck, I don’t think they are always saying the same thing on apologetics. Bavinck used the categories of presuppositionalism, but he knew when to stop the train. I think he kept himself from many of what would later be some of Van Til’s errors, or at least weak points.
Criticisms
The book isn’t always easy to read. If the reader does not have a background heavy in European Rationalism, many of Bavinck’s sparring partners will be over one’s head. Conversely, if one does have such a background in those disciplines, then there is little point to read Bavinck on them, since he is merely given a cursory reading of them.
November 15, 2023
La mejor prolegómena de teología sistemática que he leído en mi vida. Bavinck en medio de un contexto de liberalismo teológico, materialismo ateo, nihilismo nietzchiano, psicoanálisis freudiano; plantea una teología trinitaria, ortodoxa y reformada totalmente enraizada en las dos revelaciones: la creación y la Escritura. Para Bavinck, ambas revelaciones se complementan y no constituyen una antítesis sino que ambas deben complementarse. Asimismo, quita todo tipo de teología basada en el estudio sobre Dios ya que Bavinck dice que Dios no puede ser estudiado pues no está bajo ninguna ley, solo podemos estudiar su revelación por medio de Cristo a través del Espíritu Santo. Para Bavinck la teología estudia los aspectos de la fe pero lo presenta de una forma fresca y donde refuta la teología liberal y la escuela histórica religiosa de su tiempo donde el historicismo empezaba a “desmitificar” el relato bíblico. Definitivamente podemos ver en esta obra el marco teórico, la metodología y el corazón pastoral y piadoso de Bavinck por enseñar a todo creyente a vivir su fe no solo de forma privada sino pública y relevante para el mundo.
December 28, 2016
It is finished. And no review that I am capable of writing can do justice to how good this was. Excited to get Volume 2!
October 6, 2023
Bavinck is fast becoming one of my favorite thinkers I’ve ever been exposed to. Just amazing!
January 28, 2022
Theologically and philosophically rich.
December 16, 2021
The first few hundred pages when Bavinck is talking about his contemporaries can put you to sleep, but other than that, a solid systematic theology. I am excited to read the second one.
May 2, 2012
It is refreshing to read Van Til before Van Til. The influence on Van Til by men like Bavinck definitely had a great influence on Van Til's whole approach to theology, apologetics, etc. Bavinck was presuppositional through and through in this volume. He interacts well with all the current movers and shakers of his day. About the only downside to Bavinck's theological prolegomena is that he comes across as being way to enamored with the "science" of this or that theological issue. It's as if the Dutch were trying to gain the respect of the Germans by talking about the science of religion, or the science of theological prolegomena, or the science of theological encyclopedia, or the science of biblical criticism. In doing this, I think the majority of these 19th century theologians lost the art of theology. Theology is more of an art than a science.
In my opinion, the best chapter was the one on the nature and history of religion. It sort of puts to rest all the hubbub going on in our day about religion versus Jesus, or religion versus spirituality. Good stuff.
February 25, 2014
An absolutely unbelievable work that I wish I had been introduced to earlier. Bavinck is a scholar of the highest order. He understands the strands of Christian thought with a particularly strong grasp on Roman Catholic theology and various philosophical systems. He has the ability to recognize the truth tucked way inside these systems while not compromising. Many of his arguments anticipate 21st century debates about the connection between knowledge and faith, head and heart. His section on Revelation (Part IV) was amazing, as was his part on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. He explained it in ways I haven't heard before and refuted some common, but misguided ideas about what that means. But above all he knows that dogmatics should lead to praise. His work breathes the warmth of man who knew God, His Word, and the great salvation he gave to us in his son Jesus. A great book that will reward repeated readings. I cannot wait to get to Volume II.
July 28, 2011
Bavinck provides a tour de force of orthodox protestant theology. With learning both deep and wide he moves with assurance through the thickets of theological controversy to present his own carefully considered account of the Reformed tradition in theology. Written over a hundred years ago, he remains remarkably fresh and relevant. Bavinck seems to have read and thought through nearly everything; patristic, medieval, Reformation and Counter-Reformation theology, as well the contemporary (of his time) Roman Catholic and Protestant thought; philosophy, and even much anthropology and psychology of religion. He is remarkably fair to all, and always looks for what is to be learned from those with whom he disagrees. And yet he presents a powerful case for his own orthodox Calvinism.
January 2, 2020
I understand this is a classic and important work of theology. But, to use the language of Goodreads ratings, "It was OK." Very tough going. I may make reference to selections of this from time to time, but it has not been what I was hoping for a comprehensive read-through.
March 15, 2021
I was most blown away by how readable this was. I knew I was in for excellent Theology but this was similar to reading the Institutes in looking very daunting but actually being quite enjoyable to read.
December 17, 2025
Herman Bavinck (1854—1921) a Dutch Reformed theologian wrote his Reformed Dogmatics during a time when the religious European spirit was beginning to decline. With the death of Friedrich Nietzsche (1900) Bavinck would continue to contend for the faith in an environment that sought after the German prophet of Zarathustra in place of the gloried Christ. Volume 1 deals with the foundations of knowledge, reason, truth and (most importantly) faith. You would think reading a theology book with Dogmatics in the title would be stuffy and boring and perhaps it will be for some. As for me, this was a delight to read. It was deeply enriching to my soul, encouraging to my faith and provided me with the sure grounds of Christ, the word of Gad. As a bonus, the writing was in that classic 19th century literary style which made this read feel like a theological novel. Glorious in more ways than one. 20 out of 10 recommend.
February 15, 2022
Bavinck certainly lives up to the hype. This was a dense and challenging read, but I'm glad I persevered through it. I bet most folks that would read a ST from a given theological tribe outside of their own would complain that the author has not paid enough attention to understanding other traditions. Not so with Bavinck. He is extensive in his explanation and citation of various other Christian traditions. He is steeped in the history of the church and modern heterodox movements of his day. He is consistently charitable and fair in his critiques: he almost always finds a correct impulse in those with whom he disagrees.
I think what I appreciated most about Bavinck's thought is his consistent desire to reject all supernatural vs. natural dualism in favor of a sin vs. grace dualism. He regularly seeks to demonstrate that grace restores nature, grace doesn't destroy nature. On to volume two!
I think what I appreciated most about Bavinck's thought is his consistent desire to reject all supernatural vs. natural dualism in favor of a sin vs. grace dualism. He regularly seeks to demonstrate that grace restores nature, grace doesn't destroy nature. On to volume two!
October 11, 2020
I purchased Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics several years ago with the intentions of reading the four volume set. After reading Volume 1, I regret not getting started on it sooner. I knew that this was a highly touted systematic in the reformed tradition and was certain I would find a "scholarly" presentation of the Dutch Reformed Systematic. What I found however was a warm and inviting Prolegomena that has encouraged and helped me in my love for Scripture, Theology, and most importantly my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Bavinck's presentation of the Authority of Scripture in this first volume is one of the best I've ever read. His writing is clear, concise, and biblically centered. I have already started on Volume 2 and will now keep these on the "top shelf" in my reference library. Great stuff! Every Pastor should read these books.
November 23, 2021
Deep as an ocean and delightful in every way.
I finally got around to reading Bavinck and I'm so glad I did. I admit, I didn't understand everything I read (that is due to my limited intellect and not a fault of Bavinck's!). But, even though he speaks of very complicated and abstract topics at times, I still think Bavinck is quite readable.
Not as accessible as Calvin, in my opinion, but Bavinck does address topics that Calvin never addressed (probably because he didn't need to). And he does so in a thoroughly Reformed way. I learned so much!
Really helped me to think about the background of things like faith, Scripture, certainty, knowing, etc.
Can't wait to start Book 2!
I finally got around to reading Bavinck and I'm so glad I did. I admit, I didn't understand everything I read (that is due to my limited intellect and not a fault of Bavinck's!). But, even though he speaks of very complicated and abstract topics at times, I still think Bavinck is quite readable.
Not as accessible as Calvin, in my opinion, but Bavinck does address topics that Calvin never addressed (probably because he didn't need to). And he does so in a thoroughly Reformed way. I learned so much!
Really helped me to think about the background of things like faith, Scripture, certainty, knowing, etc.
Can't wait to start Book 2!
May 12, 2018
This volume is a master class in the discipline of Theological study. Bavinck carefully explains what many would simply assume. He thoughtfully engages with the great minds of history, and places the discipline of Dogmatics on solid ground amongst the other sciences.
He grapples with big ideas, but chooses to use language that is accessible to the common man.
This is an engaging read and has me hungry to continue into volume 2.
He grapples with big ideas, but chooses to use language that is accessible to the common man.
This is an engaging read and has me hungry to continue into volume 2.
June 25, 2021
Difficult, but worth the hype. I’m excited to read the rest of Bavinck’s dogmatics because the later half of this volume was much easier for me to understand. It is easy to see why Bavinck is becoming a bigger deal in theological circles. It’s well deserved.
March 27, 2021
Just superb.
August 17, 2024
Exceptional. Bavinck is in his own class--at once insightful, erudite but without sacrificing piety, and poignant in his analysis. Such a gift to Reformed theology.
May 1, 2021
Simply fantastic. Bavinck is the model for how to engage those with whom you disagree. I couldn’t suggest this highly enough. If you only read these volumes you would be a very well articulated believer.
June 29, 2024
THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE DUTCH THEOLOGIAN’S SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who was Professor of Dogmatics at Kampen Theological Seminary, and then later was Professor of Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam; and in 1908 he visited the United States and gave the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote other books, such as Doctrine of God,Saved By Grace: The Holy Spirit's Work in Calling and Regeneration,Essays on Religion, Science, and Society,The Philosophy of Revelation,Selected Shorter Works,Our Reasonable Faith,The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord, etc.
The other volumes in this series are Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: God and Creation,Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, and Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4 - Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation.
He explains, “usage teaches us that religious or theological dogma is always a combination of two elements: divine authority and churchly confession. In case a dogma is not based on divine authority, it is wrong to call it by that name, and it should not have a place in the faith of the church.” (Pg. 31)
He notes, “Theological ethics, which is … to be distinguished from philosophical ethics, is totally rooted in dogmatics… If dogmatics and ethics are to be treated as distinct disciplines… the distinction between the two can only consist in the fact that human beings, however always and utterly dependent on God, are nevertheless also free and independent agents… Dogmatics describes the deeds of God done for, to, and in human beings; ethics describes what renewed human beings now do on the basis of and in the strength of those divine deeds. In dogmatics human beings are passive; they receive and believe; in ethics they are themselves active agents… In the former, that which concerns faith is dealt with; in the latter, that which concerns love, obedience, and good works. Dogmatics sets forth what God is and does for human beings and causes them to know God as their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; ethics sets forth what human beings are and do for God now… Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God; ethics is that of the service of God. The two disciplines… together form a single system; they are related members of a single organism.” (Pg. 58)
He says of the “so-called biblical theologians… this school suffers from grave one-sidedness … it forgets that every believer and every dogmatician first of all receives his religious convictions from his or her church. Accordingly, theologians never come to Scripture from the outside, without any prior knowledge or preconceived opinion, but bring with them from their background a certain understanding of the content of revelation and so look at Scripture with the aid of the glasses that their churches have put on them…. We cannot simply divest ourselves of our environment; we are always children of our time, the products of our background. The result, therefore, is… all the dogmatic handbooks that have been published by members of the school of biblical theology faithfully reflect the personal and ecclesiastical viewpoint of their authors. They cannot, therefore, claim to be more objective than those of explicitly ecclesiastical dogmaticians.” (Pg. 82)
He suggests, “A good dogmatic method, therefore, needs to take account of all three factors: Scripture, church, and Christian consciousness. Only then can a person be kept from one-sidedness. Still, the relationship between these three must be defined. As a rule, we receive our religious convictions from our environment… In critical times like our own, it nor infrequently happens that later a painful break occurs between the faith of one’s childhood and one’s personal conviction. If this break is such that though one has to leave his own church one can still join another historic church, the break is healed relatively soon… there is no loss of religion itself, of the name ‘Christian,’ of the fellowship and confession…. On this basis, then, a dogmatics that describes the truth of God as it is recognized in a particular church remains possible.” (Pg. 84)
He states, “Not the church but Scripture is self-authenticating… the judge of controversies… and its own interpreter… Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. Church, confession, tradition---all must be ordered and adjusted by it and submit themselves to it.” (Pg. 86) Later, he adds, “Consequently, it is also the teaching of Scripture that objective revelation be completed in subjective illumination. The Reformed doctrine of Scripture is most intimately tied in with that of the testimony of the Holy Spirit… The Holy Spirit who gave us Scripture also bears witness to that Scripture in the heart of believers… But in all this they remain human beings with disposition, upbringing, and insights all their own. Faith itself does not originate in the same way in every person, nor does it have the same strength in all… As a result of all these influences, doctrinal theology continues to bear a personal character.;” (Pg. 92-93)
He laments, “Against the inroads of the new trends the universities offer no resistance, either because they have no departments of theology at all, or put upon them the secular stamp that characterizes American universities in general. And the theological seminaries are on the whole too weak to resist the influence of these modern ideas, to say nothing of countering their influence. An illustrious exception to this rule is the seminary of the Presbyterian church in Princeton. It exists independently alongside the university in that city, is bound to the church’s confession, has an excellent set of professors (Warfield, Vos, Robert Dick Wilson, Greene, etc.) and upholds the Reformed position with honor… Still, the influence of the modern mind is penetrating the Northern Presbyterian Church.” (Pg. 203-204)
He observes, “The starting point of the theory of knowledge ought to be ordinary daily experience, the universal and natural certainty of human beings concerning the objectivity and truth of their knowledge… Only a theory of knowledge such that on the one hand it never leaves the ground of experience and on the other penetrates the very depths of the problem has a chance to succeed… Every human, after all, accepts the reliability of the senses and the existence of the external world, not by a logical inference from the effect… not by reasoning from the resistance his will encounters to an objective reality that generates this resistance. Prior to all reflection and reasoning, everyone is in fact fully assured of the real existence of the world. This certainty is not born out of a syllogism, nor is it supported by proof; it is immediate, originating spontaneously within us along with perception itself.” (Pg. 223)
He states, “religion demands even more. It does not only assume that God exists but also that he in some fashion reveals himself and makes himself known… The essence of religion does not just exist subjectively in a religious disposition, which expresses itself as it sees fit, but also in an objective religion, in dogma, morality, and cult, which have authority for believers only because in the conviction of those believers they contain the will and proper service of God. The origin of religion can neither be historically demonstrated nor psychologically explained but points, from necessity, at revelation as it objective foundation.” (Pg. 276-277)
He continues, “Corresponding to the objective revelation of God, therefore, there is in human beings a certain faculty or natural aptitude for perceiving the divine. God does not do half a job… True and genuine religion can exist only in the complete correspondence of the internal to the external revelation… Religion exists because God is God and wants to be served as God by his rational creatures. To that end he reveals himself to human beings in word and deed… There is no religion apart from God making himself known to human beings both objectively and subjectively.” (Pg. 278-279)
He asserts, “No science, however ‘presuppositionless,’ is or will ever be able to … bring about, in the life of all nations and people, unity in the most basic convictions of the heart… only religious unity will be able to bring about the spiritual and intellectual unity of humankind. As long as disagreement prevails in religion, science too will be unable to achieve the ideal of unity. If science in our day frequently judges otherwise, it is mistaken in two ways: first, in thinking that religious faith, also belief in a revelation, is based on scientific grounds and could therefore at some future date be uprooted by scientific arguments; second, in cherishing the illusion that it could ever take a position outside of history and in that sense be unbiased and impartial.” (Pg. 298-299)
He goes on, “Science… has nothing to fear from the supernatural. But every science must remain within the bounds of its own area and not arrogate to itself the right to pose the law to another science. It is the right and duty of natural science to search within its area for the natural causes of phenomena. But it should not attempt to rule over philosophy when the latter investigates the origin and destiny of things. It should also recognize the right and independence of religion and theology and not attempt to undermine the foundations on which they rest. For at stake here are religious motives for belief in a revelation about which natural science as such cannot make any judgment… miracles irrevocably belong to history, and in history a different method has to be applied than in the natural sciences… in history we are dealing with the testimony of witnesses.. Let every science, therefore, remain in its own area and there investigate things according to their own nature.” (Pg. 371-372)
He proposed, “We must avoid both the one-sidedness of intellectualism and that of mysticism, for they are both a denial of the riches of revelation… revelation in this dispensation is continued jointly in Scripture and in the church… Scripture explains the church; the church understands Scripture… Scripture, accordingly, does not stand by itself. It may not be construed deistically. It is rooted in a centuries-long history and is the fruit of God’s revelation among the people of Israel and in Christ… It does not just serve to give us historical information; it does not even have the intent to furnish us with a historical story by the standard of reliability demanded in other realms of knowledge.” (Pg. 384)
He argues, “If Scripture obviously intends to present a story as historical, the exegete has no right, at the discretion of historical criticism, to turn it into a myth. Yet it is true that the historiography of Holy Scripture has a character of its own. Its purpose is not to tell us precisely all that has happened in times past with the human race and with Israel but to relate to us the history of God’s revelation… Considered from the viewpoint and by the standards of secular history, Scripture is often incomplete, full of gaps and certainly not written by the rules of contemporary historical criticism. From this it surely does not follow that the historiography of Scripture is untrue and unreliable… The reports about the main events, say, the time of Jesus’ birth… his resurrection, etc., are far from homogeneous and leave room for a variety of views.” (Pg. 446-447)
He points out, “Apologetics… was the first Christian science… it teaches that Christians, even though they cannot confer faith on anyone, need not hide from their opponents in embarrassed silence… [they] find support for it in nature and history, in science and art, in society and state, in the heart and conscience of every human being. The Christian worldview alone is the one that fits the reality of the world and of life…. It cannot truly convert people to God. Not even the preaching of the gospel is able to do that… [But] apologetics… can be a source of consummate blessing.” (Pg. 515)
He asserts, “Human beings need two things for the life of their soul; they need a powerful spiritual authority who is nearby and a final goal that is distant. These two needs are absolutely fulfilled by Christianity… It is because Christianity does this that it is the absolute religion, and this is established not by the authority of Scripture but only by the experience that it in fact meets our needs. The only fully satisfactory proof is the proof of discovery and experience, of spirit and power…. [I] get to know God only by the experience of his love.” (Pg. 532) Nevertheless, “however highly we may esteem the element of comfort in religion… as proof solely in and by itself it is insufficient. After all, some comfort and satisfaction can be found in all religions.” (Pg. 552)
He observes, “Scripture is recognized by its own truth. But Scripture acquires certainty as God’s own Word with us by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Though proofs and reasonings are of great value, this testimony surpasses them by far… If we have that testimony within us, we do not rest in any human judgment but observe without any doubt as if we were gazing upon God himself in it… But that must not be understood as if we blindly submit to a thing that is unknown to us…” (Pg. 583)
He explains, “Faith pauses to consider the facts; theology, on the other hand, attempts to get down to the idea. Faith is content with the THAT; theology inquires into the WHY and the HOW. Faith is always personal; it always relates the object to persons themselves and is directly interested in the religious content of the dogma. Theology, on the other hand, in a sense ‘objectivizes’ the object; it attempts to see the truth as it objectively exists in itself. It explores its unity and inner coherence and seeks to arrive at a system.” (Pg. 615-616)
This entire series will be of great interest to those seriously studying Reformed theology.
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who was Professor of Dogmatics at Kampen Theological Seminary, and then later was Professor of Theology at the Free University in Amsterdam; and in 1908 he visited the United States and gave the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary. He wrote other books, such as Doctrine of God,Saved By Grace: The Holy Spirit's Work in Calling and Regeneration,Essays on Religion, Science, and Society,The Philosophy of Revelation,Selected Shorter Works,Our Reasonable Faith,The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord, etc.
The other volumes in this series are Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: God and Creation,Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, and Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4 - Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation.
He explains, “usage teaches us that religious or theological dogma is always a combination of two elements: divine authority and churchly confession. In case a dogma is not based on divine authority, it is wrong to call it by that name, and it should not have a place in the faith of the church.” (Pg. 31)
He notes, “Theological ethics, which is … to be distinguished from philosophical ethics, is totally rooted in dogmatics… If dogmatics and ethics are to be treated as distinct disciplines… the distinction between the two can only consist in the fact that human beings, however always and utterly dependent on God, are nevertheless also free and independent agents… Dogmatics describes the deeds of God done for, to, and in human beings; ethics describes what renewed human beings now do on the basis of and in the strength of those divine deeds. In dogmatics human beings are passive; they receive and believe; in ethics they are themselves active agents… In the former, that which concerns faith is dealt with; in the latter, that which concerns love, obedience, and good works. Dogmatics sets forth what God is and does for human beings and causes them to know God as their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; ethics sets forth what human beings are and do for God now… Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God; ethics is that of the service of God. The two disciplines… together form a single system; they are related members of a single organism.” (Pg. 58)
He says of the “so-called biblical theologians… this school suffers from grave one-sidedness … it forgets that every believer and every dogmatician first of all receives his religious convictions from his or her church. Accordingly, theologians never come to Scripture from the outside, without any prior knowledge or preconceived opinion, but bring with them from their background a certain understanding of the content of revelation and so look at Scripture with the aid of the glasses that their churches have put on them…. We cannot simply divest ourselves of our environment; we are always children of our time, the products of our background. The result, therefore, is… all the dogmatic handbooks that have been published by members of the school of biblical theology faithfully reflect the personal and ecclesiastical viewpoint of their authors. They cannot, therefore, claim to be more objective than those of explicitly ecclesiastical dogmaticians.” (Pg. 82)
He suggests, “A good dogmatic method, therefore, needs to take account of all three factors: Scripture, church, and Christian consciousness. Only then can a person be kept from one-sidedness. Still, the relationship between these three must be defined. As a rule, we receive our religious convictions from our environment… In critical times like our own, it nor infrequently happens that later a painful break occurs between the faith of one’s childhood and one’s personal conviction. If this break is such that though one has to leave his own church one can still join another historic church, the break is healed relatively soon… there is no loss of religion itself, of the name ‘Christian,’ of the fellowship and confession…. On this basis, then, a dogmatics that describes the truth of God as it is recognized in a particular church remains possible.” (Pg. 84)
He states, “Not the church but Scripture is self-authenticating… the judge of controversies… and its own interpreter… Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. Church, confession, tradition---all must be ordered and adjusted by it and submit themselves to it.” (Pg. 86) Later, he adds, “Consequently, it is also the teaching of Scripture that objective revelation be completed in subjective illumination. The Reformed doctrine of Scripture is most intimately tied in with that of the testimony of the Holy Spirit… The Holy Spirit who gave us Scripture also bears witness to that Scripture in the heart of believers… But in all this they remain human beings with disposition, upbringing, and insights all their own. Faith itself does not originate in the same way in every person, nor does it have the same strength in all… As a result of all these influences, doctrinal theology continues to bear a personal character.;” (Pg. 92-93)
He laments, “Against the inroads of the new trends the universities offer no resistance, either because they have no departments of theology at all, or put upon them the secular stamp that characterizes American universities in general. And the theological seminaries are on the whole too weak to resist the influence of these modern ideas, to say nothing of countering their influence. An illustrious exception to this rule is the seminary of the Presbyterian church in Princeton. It exists independently alongside the university in that city, is bound to the church’s confession, has an excellent set of professors (Warfield, Vos, Robert Dick Wilson, Greene, etc.) and upholds the Reformed position with honor… Still, the influence of the modern mind is penetrating the Northern Presbyterian Church.” (Pg. 203-204)
He observes, “The starting point of the theory of knowledge ought to be ordinary daily experience, the universal and natural certainty of human beings concerning the objectivity and truth of their knowledge… Only a theory of knowledge such that on the one hand it never leaves the ground of experience and on the other penetrates the very depths of the problem has a chance to succeed… Every human, after all, accepts the reliability of the senses and the existence of the external world, not by a logical inference from the effect… not by reasoning from the resistance his will encounters to an objective reality that generates this resistance. Prior to all reflection and reasoning, everyone is in fact fully assured of the real existence of the world. This certainty is not born out of a syllogism, nor is it supported by proof; it is immediate, originating spontaneously within us along with perception itself.” (Pg. 223)
He states, “religion demands even more. It does not only assume that God exists but also that he in some fashion reveals himself and makes himself known… The essence of religion does not just exist subjectively in a religious disposition, which expresses itself as it sees fit, but also in an objective religion, in dogma, morality, and cult, which have authority for believers only because in the conviction of those believers they contain the will and proper service of God. The origin of religion can neither be historically demonstrated nor psychologically explained but points, from necessity, at revelation as it objective foundation.” (Pg. 276-277)
He continues, “Corresponding to the objective revelation of God, therefore, there is in human beings a certain faculty or natural aptitude for perceiving the divine. God does not do half a job… True and genuine religion can exist only in the complete correspondence of the internal to the external revelation… Religion exists because God is God and wants to be served as God by his rational creatures. To that end he reveals himself to human beings in word and deed… There is no religion apart from God making himself known to human beings both objectively and subjectively.” (Pg. 278-279)
He asserts, “No science, however ‘presuppositionless,’ is or will ever be able to … bring about, in the life of all nations and people, unity in the most basic convictions of the heart… only religious unity will be able to bring about the spiritual and intellectual unity of humankind. As long as disagreement prevails in religion, science too will be unable to achieve the ideal of unity. If science in our day frequently judges otherwise, it is mistaken in two ways: first, in thinking that religious faith, also belief in a revelation, is based on scientific grounds and could therefore at some future date be uprooted by scientific arguments; second, in cherishing the illusion that it could ever take a position outside of history and in that sense be unbiased and impartial.” (Pg. 298-299)
He goes on, “Science… has nothing to fear from the supernatural. But every science must remain within the bounds of its own area and not arrogate to itself the right to pose the law to another science. It is the right and duty of natural science to search within its area for the natural causes of phenomena. But it should not attempt to rule over philosophy when the latter investigates the origin and destiny of things. It should also recognize the right and independence of religion and theology and not attempt to undermine the foundations on which they rest. For at stake here are religious motives for belief in a revelation about which natural science as such cannot make any judgment… miracles irrevocably belong to history, and in history a different method has to be applied than in the natural sciences… in history we are dealing with the testimony of witnesses.. Let every science, therefore, remain in its own area and there investigate things according to their own nature.” (Pg. 371-372)
He proposed, “We must avoid both the one-sidedness of intellectualism and that of mysticism, for they are both a denial of the riches of revelation… revelation in this dispensation is continued jointly in Scripture and in the church… Scripture explains the church; the church understands Scripture… Scripture, accordingly, does not stand by itself. It may not be construed deistically. It is rooted in a centuries-long history and is the fruit of God’s revelation among the people of Israel and in Christ… It does not just serve to give us historical information; it does not even have the intent to furnish us with a historical story by the standard of reliability demanded in other realms of knowledge.” (Pg. 384)
He argues, “If Scripture obviously intends to present a story as historical, the exegete has no right, at the discretion of historical criticism, to turn it into a myth. Yet it is true that the historiography of Holy Scripture has a character of its own. Its purpose is not to tell us precisely all that has happened in times past with the human race and with Israel but to relate to us the history of God’s revelation… Considered from the viewpoint and by the standards of secular history, Scripture is often incomplete, full of gaps and certainly not written by the rules of contemporary historical criticism. From this it surely does not follow that the historiography of Scripture is untrue and unreliable… The reports about the main events, say, the time of Jesus’ birth… his resurrection, etc., are far from homogeneous and leave room for a variety of views.” (Pg. 446-447)
He points out, “Apologetics… was the first Christian science… it teaches that Christians, even though they cannot confer faith on anyone, need not hide from their opponents in embarrassed silence… [they] find support for it in nature and history, in science and art, in society and state, in the heart and conscience of every human being. The Christian worldview alone is the one that fits the reality of the world and of life…. It cannot truly convert people to God. Not even the preaching of the gospel is able to do that… [But] apologetics… can be a source of consummate blessing.” (Pg. 515)
He asserts, “Human beings need two things for the life of their soul; they need a powerful spiritual authority who is nearby and a final goal that is distant. These two needs are absolutely fulfilled by Christianity… It is because Christianity does this that it is the absolute religion, and this is established not by the authority of Scripture but only by the experience that it in fact meets our needs. The only fully satisfactory proof is the proof of discovery and experience, of spirit and power…. [I] get to know God only by the experience of his love.” (Pg. 532) Nevertheless, “however highly we may esteem the element of comfort in religion… as proof solely in and by itself it is insufficient. After all, some comfort and satisfaction can be found in all religions.” (Pg. 552)
He observes, “Scripture is recognized by its own truth. But Scripture acquires certainty as God’s own Word with us by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Though proofs and reasonings are of great value, this testimony surpasses them by far… If we have that testimony within us, we do not rest in any human judgment but observe without any doubt as if we were gazing upon God himself in it… But that must not be understood as if we blindly submit to a thing that is unknown to us…” (Pg. 583)
He explains, “Faith pauses to consider the facts; theology, on the other hand, attempts to get down to the idea. Faith is content with the THAT; theology inquires into the WHY and the HOW. Faith is always personal; it always relates the object to persons themselves and is directly interested in the religious content of the dogma. Theology, on the other hand, in a sense ‘objectivizes’ the object; it attempts to see the truth as it objectively exists in itself. It explores its unity and inner coherence and seeks to arrive at a system.” (Pg. 615-616)
This entire series will be of great interest to those seriously studying Reformed theology.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews