I bought Bavinck's 4 volumes dogmatics set almost 3 years ago. And today is the day I finally completed his 4th volume.
I have to say upfront, as a Reformed Anglican, this volume is probably the most painful read ever due to differences in church polity and sacraments. Those familiar with Anglicanism will know that the Anglican confessions such as the 39 articles and 1662 BCP affirm episcopal polity and hold to a higher view of the efficacy of sacraments than Bavinck himself.
Since I have begun my review with disagreements and critiques, I might as well get the significant ones out of the way first before looking at the commendable things in this volume. Speaking of Anglicanism, it's quite clear that Bavink is not familiar enough with this tradition. Most of his interaction with Anglicanism deals with the Anglo-catholic and Laudian theologians rather than with the Anglican confessions. It is the confessions that define Anglicanism, and even if he wants to interact with Anglican theologians, he should spend more pages engaging with classical Anglican theologians such as John Jewel, Richard Hooker, Thomas Cranmer, Lancelot Andrewes, Matthew Parker, John Ponet, etc.
Moreover, he does not understand the Lutheran tradition sufficiently as well. Hence sometimes he misrepresented the Anglicans and Lutherans on some topics such as their liturgy, Absolution & Confession, and Apostolic Succession. He conflates the Anglican and Lutheran views on these topics with the Roman Catholic views which do have some significant differences. Moreover, he does not understand the concept of "Barely Protestantism" held by confessional Lutherans. He sees that Lutherans want to return to Roman Catholicism in some issues, but that wasn't the right narrative and representation of them. It was never the intention of the confessional Lutherans to return to Rome. They intended to barely reform the Church by going back to the teachings of the Catholic church before the corruption of Rome. There's a big difference between wanting to be "barely Protestant" versus "returning to Rome" which Bavinck did not quite understand. Hence, on these issues, he's not being fair to Anglicans and Lutherans. Furthermore, he doesn't engage with their exegesis about how they came to a different position than him. This is because he spent more time engaging with their narrative and neglected to engage with their exegesis.
But I do sympathize with him because it was not his intention to misrepresent them, this is largely due to ignorance from his side. Readers who do not know confessional Anglicanism and Lutheranism enough would not be able to identify Bavinck's misrepresentation of them in this volume.
And as to Bavinck's views on the sacraments, I think he's not being very consistent. His view on the Lord's Supper is on the Calvinist side, but his view on baptism leans more toward Zwinglian's school of thought. He's not aware of John Calvin's inconsistency on baptismal efficacy too, and how the other confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, Knox's Scottish Confession, the Geneva Confession, and the French Confession have a higher efficacious view of baptism in a sense that water baptism literally saves and it's certainly not just merely a sign or as an instrument to strengthen faith as how Bavinck sees it. These confessions affirm that baptism does confer saving and regenerating grace.
Despite the critiques above, I think this book is still worth reading. There are a lot of gems to be mined from this book. For starters, unlike most theologians today, Bavinck is really familiar with the liturgy and theology of the Roman Catholic church. For most of us, it will not be a problem to understand the theological aspects of how he engages with Rome. But only those who have some familiarity with liturgy through experience and the study of liturgy history will understand what Bavinck is talking about when he engages with the liturgy of Rome. Moreover unlike most modern systematic theology books today, Bavinck does not write from an independent perspective. Instead, he writes from a Catholic (universal) and Confessional perspective that he is convicted of. This will not only help his readers to understand the Classical Reformed view (which is very different from today's New Calvinism by The Gospel Coalition, D A Carson, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, etc) but will also help to shape their thinking to be more Catholic and Confessional (without discounting critical thinking) rather than the self-popery independent kind of reinventing the wheel thinking which has plagued many evangelical churches today. In other words, Bavinck's readers will be influenced to see theological thinking as not just a personal project, it is very much a group project across history and various denominations.
One can also see how pastoral Bavinck is across all 4 volumes of his Reformed Dogmatics. As good as this is, I don't think this is the selling point that sets him apart from other systematic theology. There are plenty ST and theological books out there that are more pastoral than Bavinck, i.e. Turretin, Brakel, and the Puritans. But what sets Bavinck apart from them is that he engages the worldviews of church history, human history in general, science, philosophy, various cultures, and other religions. The best part about him is that he's able to find some kind of common ground, problems, or hope from other worldviews and use them to point toward the Christian hope.
This is not to say he represents various views accurately all the time since he mostly relies on secondary sources, but nevertheless one will find more good apples than bad apples so it's still worth learning from him.
I hope to read Volume 1 to 3 in the future again and make some changes to the previous reviews I posted about them. But that will take me a while. Back then I read them with a biblicist mindset expecting the same biblicist hermeneutics from Bavinck. Only after I learned about Classical Theism, then I begin to realize that Bavinck was using lots of good and necessary consequences, in the sense of logic and inferences guided by Scripture to argue for his position. Bavinck does use explicit statements from Scripture too but most of the time he will only bracket them for that straightforward and obvious theology. So don't expect him to give an exegesis for all the straightforward issues because he is not writing a commentary in his dogmatics. Only for difficult and controversial issues he will give his exegesis. It is important to know this to get the most out of Bavinck. If I had known this earlier I would give his vol 1 to 3 a much more positive rating and review. Finally, knowing the original Hebrew and Greek biblical languages (vocabulary and grammar) will help one understand his explanation's nuances better. But one can still get the gist of what he's trying to convey even if one does not know the original biblical languages.