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).

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.

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.

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.

“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.

Our last post looked at some of Bavinck’s opening words on regeneration. Self-awareness and self-improvement are to the spiritual life the first mile of a thousand. And, as far as east is from west, everyone has a little different idea of what the new birth is.

(more…)

When it comes to decision making, tomorrow often never comes. For Bavinck and the Reformed, this adage is too true for the Pelagian doctrine of regeneration. Assuming the final cause of salvation (faith and belief in the Gospel) rests in the ability to accept or deny most people won’t bother; the quality of the message waffles, and those who cannot exercise choice (infants, etc) are simply discounted from the conversation. On the other hand how does God bestow his grace to an indifferent and hostile world? The answer, says Bavinck, is simple.

The Holy Spirit is the cause of regeneration. He is not the instrument, say as a pen, but he is the author, say as the creator of the concept and the reality. The Gospel is preached and offered to human beings not as ‘elect’ or ‘reprobate’ but as ‘sinners’. This creates many conceptual problems which are not intellectual mind-games, but genuinely impact the quality of an individual’s faith in the life of the church body (or community). Bavinck’s treatment of the doctrinal development of baptism on this point is well worth consulting, especially as baptism physically represents all these issues in one tub.

There is more to life and salvation than just a Pelagian antithesis to saved by grace alone. In modern culture, perhaps in post-modernity as well, there will always be the notion that salvation, strictly speaking, is cultural improvement and social redemption. Self-aware spirituality is in many ways the height of being whereas Bavinck and the reformed see it as the minimal qualification defining a human being. Bavinck’s quote with a citation from Euken deserves to be presented in full:

When Christianity acts as a religion of redemption, it by implication assumes the existence of a sharp contrast between what humans are and what they ought to be. It expresses their inability to reach the summit by gradual self-improvement, and proclaims a transformation by elevation by an immediate intervention of the divine [Holy Spirit]. And this is confirmed by the general experience of the spiritual life. For it shows, “how the Spiritual Life is unable to find its necessary self-reliance in the world of ordinary experience; we have seen a breach between genuine spirituality and the world taking place; and we have seen how the effects of all this … toil in vain without an inner elevation through the energy of an absolute life.”

This year at the Calvin 21 conference I ran into Rev. Bart Elshout, translator of Brakel’s Christian’s Reasonable Service. He’s good people. I asked his thoughts on the great theme running through á Brakel and received two memorable answers: “Christ is so lovely, that believers come back to him a thousand times.” Speaking on our perspective of God in faith and prayer, “we are always going out of our way to beg God to be gracious. On the contrary, says á Brakel, God goes out of his way to prove he is gracious to us.”

Speaking to regeneration, Bavinck said that hope characterizes the Christian life. He then thunders down the line rounding up Pelagians. Á Brakel picks up where Bavinck leaves off: hope has certainty, a special perspective and usefulness for everyday life.

Hope is a propensity, á Brakel writes, a principle character given by the Spirit in regeneration. Hope is improved by experience. When it comes to contradictions, roadblocks, hurdles, and the drudgery of the mundane hope is no worse for the wear. God foreknows we need hope and gives it as freely as wisdom (James 1:5, 12). There are many spiritual benefits for exercising hope (against taking the attitude of unbelief and worry) but how are the believer’s goals certain if the ‘means’ are obscure?

Á Brakel says hope gains certainty and confidence in God’s promises of eternal life, salvation (temporal deliverance), and future benefits as represented in scripture. Some ministers might add to the promises a new car, home, happy marriage, and other stuff to the list which materially would solidify God’s salvation. Á Brakel might ask, with scripture, how can anything else compare with the true knowledge of God and his eternal glory (Psalm 73)? Compare anything in life next to experiencing the certainty of salvation and you discover the logic of faith to be correct, God to be true. Á Brakel believes that hope attains the right way of communion with God: “the result of hope is holy industry.”*

There are many examples of faith overcoming all odds, but hope often seems to be a missing element from the stories. Joseph was enslaved and imprisoned in ancient Egypt. The Apostles returned to Galilee not knowing what to expect. Rev. Elshout was locked in a basement for five years translating á Brakel. Faith touches reason, but hope is included as well, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

___

* This is not to disparage prayer for daily needs. Brakel’s treatment of prayer is very generous. Here Brakel confines his view of hope in direct relation to God’s glory in revealing himself and providing eternal salvation.

There is a lot at stake in describing regeneration and coming to faith. Above all is the certainty that faith is genuine, leading to eternal life; its hope valid, its conduct legitimate. The reality of rebirth in Christianity is certain for one long and historical reason. Upon serious reflection, theologians from Irenaeus onward had a difficult time explaining the change: they found describing this new life in the Spirit elusive, living beyond the formula of baptism. Can Bavinck solve this complex riddle? We shall see.   

The New Testament presentation of rebirth and resurrection is summed up in hope. Bavinck writes, “Hope characterizes [the believer’s] whole lifestyle … it is not a static possession, but living, active, and strong.” Baptism represents faith and renewal of the inner-person as conducted by the person of the Holy Spirit. There is a new perspective in the believer: they walk in newness of life obtaining justification, adoption, and gain the assurance of adoption through the witness of the Spirit (Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6; 2 Cor. 1:22). Rebirth has less of a connection to calling in John than found in Paul. In John’s Gospel, rebirth is a work of the Father, “who gave his own to Christ … even before his incarnation.” Christ was, after all, the Logos though not everyone recognized him or received him (John 1:5, 9-11). Now, if regeneration is a response to a call -a receiving of faith from God- and not a ‘work’ performed to merit eternal life, how does that work?

I believe, help me in my unbelief

The sinful will of humans is responsible for unbelief. Pelagianism does not work in practice, nor any similar view that ascribes the final cause of salvation to the human will; it introduces grace merely as the restoration of volitional choice. Unless the right choice is made there is no salvation for that person: one minute they are capable, the next minute they are not. And it’s more exclusionary than one would imagine. To say that salvation consists in the choosing excludes infants who die prematurely. From the perspective of the congregation, the interest of faith (choice) rests entirely in the competency of the minister to present the gospel. What if, one Lord’s Day, at the critical moment the message of the gospel was bungled and the meaning confused? The chance to choose was lost. So it is far better and correct to say that God grants his grace freely to sinners he chooses out of his holiness, mercy, and infinite wisdom. I am willing, said our savior, be cleansed, is the gracious attitude of the New Testament.

We are now setting out in volume 4 of Bavinck’s Dogmatics. Part 1: The Holy Spirit gives New Life to Believers covers faith and calling, justification and regeneration before dealing with the community of the church in part 2. Readers should not feel intimidated by the massive size of this book (940 pps. w/index) for one reason: application. As these few remaining articles hope to show, the sum of Bavinck’s theology upholds the industry of the gospel. Christ is preached; not to the elect; not to the reprobate; but to sinners needing redemption.

Sin had disrupted the world and wrecked havoc but humankind continued to exist. We owe it to the ‘external call’ of the law (vocatio realis), says Bavinck, that families, society, religion, arts and sciences have kept the human race from sinking into utter self-annihilation. But in terms of real salvation and divine calling, a calling unto fellowship in life eternal, this is only the bare minimum. The world, says John, did not know the Logos nor did it receive Christ (John 1:3, 10). The Gospel call (vocatio verbalis) of Christ does not cancel out the law mediated by nature and history but transcends it. How, you ask Bavinck? The Gospel is an invitation to faith in the grace of God, not an invitation to obedience to the law but is fully is accompanied by the witness of the Holy Spirit at work in the members of the church.

The tensions between law and gospel, faith and reason, accepting and rejecting, works, righteousness and so on will always be with us. On the broad spectrum between Reformed and Universalists one thing is certain: “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.” The trick, says Bavinck, is how to turn that faith into a reality. A problem is immediately raised once the God-appointed order becomes reinterpreted or flipped: preach a message that faith is produced in the choosing (created through human activity) and the gospel looses its certainty and definite character. Christ made salvation possible for anyone but not actual for no one. The imperative of salvation sinks to a moral example. Either God gives his grace or it evolves out of a long process of keeping rules and morals.

Can a pastor tell a dying man he has all the time in the world to believe in God’s grace? On the other hand not everyone accepts the message of the cross but rather reject it. Our next post will examine this willingness or unwillingness to faith in Bavinck’s masterful treatment.

Reformation Heritage Books is offering an additional $10 off a 4 volume set of Wilhelmus á Brakel’s The Christian’s Reasonable Service which is good only through tomorrow. Simply enter this cupon code: Brakel2009 in the checkout field online, or mention it if ordering by phone. The last day for the discount is Saturday, August 15, 2009.

One of the faster ways to gain a full perspective on patience is being a parent. If one were to reflect on a time in childhood when denied a toy, a treat, or play it could rekindle a frumpy feeling. But as a parent one is fully aware of the value of patience when doling out toys and sweets. A good round of experience and reflection in this area, especially when dealing with impatient children is, ‘Wow. I wish I could have been more patient when I was three.’ And for good reason.

Á Brakel sees patience as one of the most gracious of all Christian dispositions: it is the most childlike. Through the spiritual gift of patience, one has meekness, willingness, self-denial, belief (true faith), hope, and love to God. Patience is near the most perfect language in all our conversation with the Lord. Non-believer’s cannot truly be patient (as a gift from God) to endure all things but can only resolve to endure, be stoic, and cross the fingers that all will be well.  Not so with the believer.

The believer’s patience is grounded in the promises of God. For one, the believer knows that affliction is temporary and will curiously work out for the good (2 Cor. 1:4; 7:6, 1 Pet. 3:4). For another, a Christian’s suffering is sure to pass leaving confidence that there will be good spiritual fruit, particularly in their relationship with the Lord (Heb. 12:11; Ps. 119:75).The proof is not so much in the pudding as it is in the eating.

Patience, says á Brakel, is the best evidence one has of genuine faith, both to themselves and to their neighbor. “Consider that the way to heaven is the way of affliction, and that we cannot walk upon this way except by way of patience.”

Our ‘leap of faith’ here means that we have now jumped from mid-way of volume three (Sin and Salvation in Christ) into the beginning of volume four: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation in Bavinck’s magisterial Reformed Dogmatics. Some have suggested that faith is a ‘leap in the dark.’ In the movies, as in real life, this view of faith often comes down to the climatic moment that cuts the blue wire or dashes to the train station before she leaves forever. In Bavinck’s ongoing contest with modernism and the loss of objectivity, this idea of faith is pretty much disastrous for religion. There is great objective certainty in Deus dixit; God has spoken, revealing his glory in the message of the Gospel. But is it true for everyone? Bavinck’s reply has cause for alarm.

The one thing biblical theology is sure of is, “The Triune God produces all things in creation and new creation by his Word and Spirit.” The puzzler is how the call to faith has not achieved universal results. The outcome is in God’s hands, says Bavinck, which is not to say salvation is random or exclusivist. Far from it. The Gospel is delivered to sinners, not the ‘elect’ or ‘reprobate.’ When a person acknowledges the mystery of God’s will in salvation they gain insight into God’s glory. And like all spiritual knowledge, it must be given of God.

Soteriology has as many intellectual problems as the doctrines of the Trinity and two-natures of Christ. Regeneration proceeds faith is the correct explanation, but there are ethical considerations. For one, overemphasis on regeneration can lead people to feel uncertain about their faith. Infant baptism, for another, could be a presumption if personal faith takes priority. Arminian based views assuming that some grace is given to motivate the human will, or that the will can ascent to faith in God, ultimately deem the concept or regeneration unnecessary. This is a dangerous position in the modern era, says Bavinck, where concepts of moral empowerment gradually evolve from improved human character assume the meaning of ‘renewal’ and ‘rebirth.’ It sounds appealing, but it reduces God’s glory and sovereignty into the elephant in the room.

These theological problems are not intellectual fodder but go directly to faith as the principle of renewed life. For Bavinck, such theological assumptions affect the life of faith, and the quality of that life in direct, intimate communion with God in the Spirit. The mystery of God’s prerogative in salvation is as sticky as freedom, liberty and love. God’s grace is irresistible but is not coercive. It frees from the power of sin and it is created in love.

Wilhelmus á Brakel’s (1635-1711) pastoral theology is warm and deserving of its title, The Christian’s Reasonable Service. Á Brakel’s understated style and manner of writing is thoughtful, practical, and highly adaptable for ministers looking to convey real truth without fancy tricks or bling. To prove it Reformation Heritage Books is having a special offer: Receive an additional $10 off the 4 volume set of Brakel’s Reasonable Service from now until August 15, 2009. Simply enter this coupon code Brakel2009 in the RHB shopping cart, or mention this post if ordering by phone. Á Brakel may be obscure to some readers today, but his devotional style and confident pastoral treatment of the Christian inner-life has an unbeatable shelf-life.

Down is Not Out

Self-denial is the Christian’s most active, most visible demonstration of faith. It comes more or less naturally, says á Brakel, from love to God and contentment in the knowledge and experience of His will. Perhaps there is no better interpretation of James 2:18, the thorniest verse in the NT, than a long steady life of self-denial. Self-denial is a grace given by God; it forms the will in the new life of the believer. God gives this grace according to sanctification. Self-denial is a high human virtue but it is not natural, that is to say, it is not necessarily a universal. There can be occasional acts of self-denial, but only the regenerate believer has this grace as a genuine disposition. Self-denial is not a random act of kindness that is able to outweigh a lifetime of selfishness.

Aesthetics or Ascetics?

Self-denial has a checkered past. Many early Christians took self-denial as an austere life in extreme conditions, though many famous Greek philosophers did similar things.* The believer, with a new love for God, finds something superior in the will of God above all else they could ever desire.** The objective is not simply to deprive one’s self of basic needs, or repress desire altogether; the object is God’s glory and the welfare of our neighbors. God’s glory, His real presence and communion in the renewed heart is simply incomparable with the beauties of the world. And putting the welfare of one’s neighbor first is golden link between Old and New Testament religion which can’t be beat. There are many benefits to self-denial ranging from debt-management to time management, allof which add to personal freedom. But there is nothing greater than experiencing real communion with God.

Above all, says á Brakel, God rewards such service to an infinite degree. “If we renounce our honor, He will give grace and glory (Psa. 84:12). If we deny possessions, the Lord will be our abundant gold… He will not permit all that we relinquish out of love for Him and for His Name to be unrequited. “He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39).

___

* For example: Pythagoras lived in a cave for a year just to think about math.

** Á Brakel does not clearly elaborate on what he means by “the will of God” but he is referring to God’s holiness, justice (summarized in the Decalogue) providence, or ‘secret will’ and belief in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. See James Ussher’s Body of Divinity on God’s will as a possible source for á Brakel’s treatment.

If trapped on a deserted island, Dr. Joel Beeke said of all the books he would take, next to the Bible, is á Brakel’s Christians Reasonable Service . Á Brakel is all pastoral. Why not Calvin’s Institiutes ? All too often Calvin’s analysis is interrupted by those ‘barking dogs’ and obscure heretics so that it’s difficult to be fully edified. And if Dr. Beeke, or yourself, were trapped on a deserted island you would definitely want to read what á Brakel has to say about divine contentment.

Satisfy my Soul

Contentment, says á Brakel, is not in the having of stuff; it comes from fulfilled desire. It has a wide and far reaching spectrum in experience and satisfaction. Some need to climb Everest while others are just as happy to golf. Yet contentment is rarely found in the fulfillment of long term or short term goals (there are always more). Conversely it’s not produced from restraint or refraining from desire –that’s merely suppression. Contentment is a disposition of the soul; the intellect, will, and affections together resting in quiet confidence, joyfully and with gratitude (in present circumstances), trusting that the Lord will cause the present and the future to turn out to their advantage.

Every Little Action

A believer’s desires should exclude evil, tend to those that are good and focuses enjoyment on the good itself. All too often original/actual sin clouds the judgment and pushes self-fulfillment beyond attainable means tending to depression. And believers have a unique emotional experience of this. In the course of sanctification, believers find contentment in the world difficult as their desires gravitate toward communion with God –something that can never be satisfied in this life.

Finding contentment is difficult but not impossible. Á Brakel’s recipe is to examine one’s circumstances either as good or something to be delivered from, looking to God for grace, mercy and peace. The foundation of contentment is God’s will, revealed in Jesus Christ which saves from the false idea of blind fate. This requires strong faith and prayer. Above all circumstances light and heavy, following after the perfect example of Christ (Matt. 26:39; John 6:38), “the love toward God’s good pleasure has the upper hand.”

We’re taking some time off this summer but it’s impossible to put Bavinck down. A set of Bavinck is difficult to stuff in a backpack, or suitcase and taking it through airport security is a joke. Fortunately Westminster bookstore has reprinted a great little Bavinck title and it’s the ideal size for travel. In just under 100 pages The Certainty of Faith makes a deep impression on the value and importance of knowing and understanding theology for the pulpit and in visitation. Here is a short quote on the practical application of theology contrasted with those of other sciences especially the medical field:

The theoretical knowledge of a doctor is doubtlessly very important, but his worth and the worth of his science only comes into its own when he heals people. Similarly, theology must prescribe medicine for the ailments of the soul. It must be able to say how and in what way we can be freed from our guilt, reconciled to God, attain to patience and hope amidst life’s tribulations, and find reason to sing praises in the face of death. A  theology that does not concern itself with these things and only dedicates itself to critical and historical studies is not worthy of the name theology. And a theologian who is acquianted with all the latest issues of science but who stands speechless at a sickbed and knows no answer to the questions of the lost sinner’s heart isn’t worthy of his title and office.

In the previous post Bavinck suggested that religion has more of a connecting point to real life than people give it credit. Sacrifice was the hinge on which the everyday working life and the door of salvation turned in the ancient world. For Bavinck this is the stock and trade of all theology: the vicarious atonement of Christ. Dogmatics has (historically) had a difficult time processing and presenting this momentous truth, yet there is no doubt to its certainty. The humility of Christ assuming human nature supports this. Believing it, however, is another matter.

After studying the sacrifices of the Old Testament one might wonder if more ink has been spilled on the topic than blood. Christ’s sacrifice was puzzled over from Irenaeus to Anselm, and especially with the latter, no one followed without revision. The great theme behind the OT sacrifices is mercy. The sacrifices did not cover the whole of life, says Bavinck, they only served as a reminder of sin and typologically pointed to another, better sacrifice. How so? The Prophets (and those speaking in a prophetic spirit) teach the spiritual nature of sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6) and promise the Messiah (Ps. 110; Jer. 23:6). Prophetic testimony, in the estimation of the New Testament, prescribes the Messiah’s human nature, humiliation, sufferings, and the priesthood in Christ’s sacrifice: the Old Covenant is fulfilled in him.

(more…)

The past three weeks have been spent on the Incarnation. All posts prior to these were an exciting prologue. The Incarnation is the very center of dogmatics and one must first understand the person of Christ before ascertaining what it is he does. Christ came to fulfill the law, establish grace, reveal the Father, send the Spirit, and atone for sin. And that just for starters. Bavinck says that this is an area which has seen little (satisfactory) treatment in dogmatics and for that we need to get busy.

There is a deep human need for redemption from sin and misery. Writing at the time of the industrial revolution, Bavinck notes that one of the greatest riddles of life is that it becomes shallow for all the cultural benefits streaming from civilization. The same can be said in the wake of a global recession. This is why there has always been religion. The needs of the human heart are greater than what culture can provide. It’s what sent Alexander the Great across Persia and subprime lenders on a similar campaign. All to say there is a wide array of civil and natural evils in the world which science and technology simply cannot hope to solve. As a general starting point, its safe to say that all ancient cultures and primitive peoples addressed the ‘problem of evil’ and the ‘possibility of redemption’ from evil and its affects through keeping laws, ‘divine’ commandments, golden rules and ratios, and above all: sacrifice. (more…)

Herman Bavinck’s theology is magisterial. One cannot put it down and fail to be impressed. But study alone, understanding alone does not produce spiritual life; it simply strives to explain it. As a supplement we’ve been reading á Brakel’s The Christians Reasonable Service (RHB, 1999), a four volume work that is written similar to a dogmatic but with much more pastoral application built in. This new series will explore some of the second half of á Brakel’s soteriology (vol. 4) which is loaded with application. If Bavinck is theological bread and butter, á Brakel is the hagelslag.

(more…)

Last week we attempted to follow Bavinck through the thick of Christology. He is an outstanding guide. Bavinck has insisted that the subtle nuance which takes Christ as a mere human personality steers him away from his place as the object of faith. This diminishes Christ’s teachings to formalities (and legalism) and constructs dogmatics as either a system of religious feeling or an ideal moral resource. This tendency does more than present formalities with little substance. For Bavinck it leads away from the life of God and renders the indwelling of the Spirit impossible.

The Old Testament anticipated the Messiah’s anointing of the Holy Spirit would be very unique (Isa. 61:1). Christ received the Spirit at baptism (without measure); the Spirit led him into the wilderness; gave him powers over spiritual authorities; and glorified his resurrected body (Rom. 1:4). He ascended into heaven, “to manifest himself to his own as life-giving Spirit who is the Spirit and who works by the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:17-19).” This goes to the virgin birth, says Bavinck, for it is not miracle enough to be born of a virgin: it doesn’t prove sinlessness. Christ is not a product of humankind, but sent to humankind. He remained exempt from original sin by the conception of the Spirit, so he was truly the Son of the Father and not a natural descendant from Adam. The great riddle of the Testaments, the Messiah is both David’s son and lord, is solved in Joseph. Joseph is civilly and legally Jesus’ father who was able to contribute the right and titles of David’s pedigree. The conception by the Holy Spirit helps to explain Christ’s sinlessness. But the real beauty is that it was the only way, “in which he who already existed as a person and was appointed head of a new covenant could now also be born in a human way … and remain who he is: the Christ, Son of the Most High” (Polanus).

(more…)

Reading Herman Bavinck is good for the mind and good for the heart. No doubt. Yet Bavinck’s applications and intents differ from what are usually described as devotional or popular works of theology i.e. less technical. Depending on the attitude, that can be taken to mean the content has been ‘dumbed down’ in some cases or ‘more readable’ in others. Bavinck’s ‘Our Reasonable Faith’ is the cream of his massive dogmatics, and is still counts for a good systematic theology, as is Berkhof’s volume and his smaller ‘summary of doctrine’ as well. How shall we then read?

(more…)

There is an interesting structure to the book of Galatians. Paul is, of course, writing this letter because of the threat of the Judaizers who came in to spy out the liberty of the Christians. The Judaizers were saying that one needed Christ and law-keeping (as represented by circumcision) to be accepted by God. The apostle Paul, as you well know, would not tolerate this perversion of the Gospel for even one minute. Therefore, in his defense of the Gospel and it implications he draws several contrasts. They are as follows:

Chapter 2 : Faith not Works

Chapter 3 : Promise (Gospel) not Law

Chapter 4 : Sons not Slaves

Chapters 5 and 6 : Spirit not Flesh

The logical connection between these contrasting principles forms the basis for the argument of the epistle. If one is to be justified (accepted by God as righteous) it must be by faith, not by works. The reason for this is the difference between the promise and the law. Once someone has been justified by faith he has been adopted into God’s family–he is a son of God, not a slave. The freedom that we have by faith in Christ, that makes us sons, is not a freedom to live in the flesh (i.e. the sinful, natural, unconverted lifestyle). We are given the Spirit when we believe and we are called to walk in the Spirit. Chapter 5 is most properly a discourse on the agency and nature of sanctification. If we are in the Spirit our lives will reflect “faith working through love.” The context is not about how we are accepted by God, but how we live once we have been given the liberty of the sons of God. Understanding the contrasting principles of Galatians is the most important thing we can know.

Here is the audio from the 2009 Next Conference :

The Preeminence of Christ (Joshua Harris)

Christ’s Incarnation (D.A. Carson)

Christ’s Life (Kevin DeYoung)

Christ’s Death (C.J. Mahaney)

Christ’s Resurrection (Sinclair Ferguson)

Christ’s Return (Sinclair Ferguson)

HT: Justin Taylor

Christology is not a dense jungle of theories. Think of it instead as a densely populated region of ideas and traditions. One quarter is made up of Gnostics; another quarter is modernist and so on. Navigating the data takes time and energy and after a day’s work one may wonder if they accomplished anything, or whether it matters. It does. This is the area of dogmatics, Bavinck would say, one needs to know where not to be after dark.

(more…)

For some time now I have been trying to get Tommy Keene, Adjunct Professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, to write exegetical posts for those of us who would like to freshen up on our Greek. Tommy has recently written a post on the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:26 (a verse claimed by all millennarians of all stripes)! You can read Tommy’s thoughts here.

We’ve paused to consider Bavinck’s discussion of eschatology as prologue to the incarnation. Its pretty serious stuff. It takes over the OT function of prophecy and recasts it according to fulfillment then sends it out into the world as the kingdom. How the kingdom looks depends on how one views the incarnation: they are inseparably linked. Through a careful discussion of modernist Christology Bavinck warns us against dividing up the kingdom by separating the historical Christ from the mystical Christ from the Synoptic Christ all the way down to the real Christ. We need to proceed with caution, says Bavinck, for this is not a fun academic puzzle with good grades and prizes: this is a battle of concepts, not words.

The incarnation of Christ has been a debate since the apostolic era. The subject is endless due to its very premise: the infinite God of the universe became a finite human being, how? Scholastics following John of Damascus attribute the divine nature occupying the human as heat does iron: it animates the human nature allowing it to participate in divine wisdom, power and glory. Lutherans differ a little, but the Reformed are looking to something with a more consistent explanation.

(more…)

Last week we struck upon several pages on eschatology before proceeding into a jam packed Christology. It has caused some serious reflection on our part, extra reading and evaluation, and the results are a postponing of this week’s column.

Geoff Stevens, Creative Director for Reformation Trust Publishing, is working on a logo and web design for New Covenant Presbyterian of Richmond Hill, Ga.

It is not uncommon to hear someone refer to Sinclair Ferguson as being the best theologian in the English speaking world. Anyone who has read his books or heard his sermons and lectures will admit that this is in no way an unfit commendation. His style is simply yet profound, his expositions are terse but weighty–his insights are simply unparalleled. It is due in part to his mastery of the various theological loci . His uncanny ability to wed systematic, biblical, exegetical and historical theology in his expositions of Scripture demonstrate this unsurpassed giftedness.

There is another aspect of his ministry that is often overlooked (of the same essence as that which he has so often commended in the life and ministry of Richard Baxter). Ferguson has, on several occasions, alluded to the fact that Baxter would “set time bombs in Kidderminster” by illustrating divine truth with everyday objects in the city. The brilliance of this method was that, no matter where someone walked in the city they would be reminded of something Baxter had said in a sermon. Like Baxter before him, Sinclair Ferguson exhibits the ability to draw from Scripture and bring it to bear on the experiences and objects in the world. Without trivializing transcendent truths, he demonstrates their experiential relevance in the world in which we live.

All the strengths that Sinclair Ferguson brings to his biblical expositions are found in the articles republished in Reformation Trust’s recently released, In Christ Alone. Written over a twenty year period, articles from Eternity Magazine and Tabletalk have been edited and organized into a manageable volume. Even the cover art, designed by Geoff Stevens, demonstrates the time and effort that went into making this volume so impressive. In Christ Alone is a welcomed addition to the Reformation Trust series.
(more…)

Bavinck’s analysis of the covenant of grace is quite moving. He stops several times to marvel at the beauty, the continuity, and it’s hard not to get choked up with him. So far Bavinck has mapped out the groundwork needed to be done by a mediator to God on man’s behalf: guarantee an incalculable debt of moral righteousness to the sovereign, restore the old covenant promises (life, eternal life), and pay for it all with an impeccable life and death. Of all the applicants for the position of God’s gift to humanity, there is only one man right for the job.

The doctrine of Christ is central for dogmatics, writes Bavinck, and it has its foundation and presupposition in the Trinitarian being of God. The Trinity makes it possible for the existence of a mediator who participates in the divine and human nature. A divine mediator is nothing new to world religion or popular culture from Gilgamesh to Neo. When Bavinck was writing nearly a century ago, he argued that an exclusive ‘history of religions’ approach overlooks the election of Abraham – the distinction that marks off Israel’s covenant relationship with God that eventually saw the Messiah into the world. The oversight results in looking around at various cultural myths of messianic figures. Bavinck argues this is the modernist way of kicking around the original literary form of Christ’s body from one culture to the next like a football. He’s right. Postmoderns do the same thing when they read the Old Testament descriptively rather than prescriptively.* Where did the idea for a divine mediator originate? The Medes? Assyria? Ancient Babylonia? Israel? The goal of dogmatics is to maintain the universal need for a mediator as self-evident. The rest, so to speak, is up to God.

(more…)

The best of all free advice in the world is always read the fine print before signing . This has saved many from the pitfalls and headaches of purchasing everything from lemons to credit. Many not most. But with the Covenant of Grace one should pay special attention to the details for a different reason. There are more blessings and benefits in the details than one might expect. How many? How much? Bavinck himself would say you won’t believe the price .

(more…)

Our last post concluded on a small slice of the infra- and supralapsarian views of grace by saying it was a real issue and not a myopic study of flavors. How one perceives the moment of regeneration directly contributes to views of adoption, faith, baptism, forgiveness, sanctification, scripture and sacrament. For Bavinck and the Reformed, these doctrines ultimately arrive at our fellowship with other believers and may impact personal faith in God.

(more…)

There is much to be said in terms of praise for Bavinck’s Saved by Grace, the Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration (RHB, 2008). ‘Profound,’ ‘fine,’ and ‘superb’ are accurate descriptions of this volume and more can be said for Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Baker, 2008). Given the long list of fine comments by fine scholars, on a certain level mine is more honest: if I had this book at grad school, I would have had better marks on more than a few papers.

Is the debate between infralapsarian and supralapsarian views of grace important? The short answer is yes. Exploring this rocky terrain is very difficult and, to push the analogy further, the study can be similar climbing Everest: a lifetime achievement for a mere three minute view at the top. What God was ‘thinking’ for his plan of salvation from all eternity is incomprehensible. At what point did he ‘decree’ to save his elect is equally unknowable even for three minutes. Christian theology and dogma often admits abstraction when explaining the decrees of God to create, redeem, and leave reprobate, all of which directs its focus on the doctrine of justification. As J. Mark Beach observes in his excellent introductory essay, the issue between infra and supra , Kuyper and Bavinck, is theological language that is potentially unbiblical and confusing.

(more…)

In his book of devotional readings, the 19th century Presbyterian J.R. Miller writing on John 5:7 notes:

“I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me in the pool.”

Are there not many unsaved people in every community who might also say, “I have no man to bring me to Christ” ? There are many lost souls for whom no one is caring. It may be answered that the Gospel is offered to all, that all could come if they would. Yet Christians must not forget that the unsaved can receive grace only through the saved; that those who are forgiven must carry the news of mercy to the unforgiven. The redemption is divine,–none but Jesus can save; but the priesthood is human. God’s ordinary way of finding sinners and bringing them to the Savior is through the love and pleading of other saved ones. Christ’s commission ran: “As the Father sent Me, even so send I you.” We are to do for the unsaved just what Christ did when he was here, what He would do now if He were living where we live, among them,–go to them and ask them if they would be made whole.

(more…)

There is still plenty of time to register for the Great Bavinck Giveaway! Subscribe by April 20 to be included in the drawing for a free copy of Bavinck’s ‘Saved by Grace’ (RHB, 2008). See the March 16 post for details. Our last post examined the outset of the Reformed ‘Covenant’ view of grace. Bavinck suggests it’s the middle way between the high Roman Church and the Anabaptist view on the opposite end.

There is a ‘cog’ between transmitting grace and receiving grace for salvation. It is a very important cog. It’s where to place the first moment of ‘regeneration’ in the order of salvation. The question is: does regeneration happen before or after ‘calling’? Many within the Reformed camp assume regeneration happens before baptism and others similarly hold that it could also (not to exclude the former possibility) occur a few days into one’s life, as in the case of covenant children who die in infancy. That rule, explains Bavinck, is the concession that regeneration happens apart from the agency of the Word, or through the Word; it’s a matter of degree, not principle. What’s the point? The Reformed believe that grace is free: The Lord has instituted signs and wonders to accommodate the means of grace e.g. the Word and Sacrament which proceed from Christ by His Spirit. Sounds good, right?

On the other hand, argue the Anabaptists generally, the Sprit is opposed to nature. Regeneration precedes ‘calling’ through the Word. This means the Holy Spirit works directly, effectually, and irresistibly in the human heart in opposition to the Word or other material  means. The church, they contend, does not itself mediate grace. Nor does the minister directly convey grace to the believer. The scriptures for that matter do not contain the actual reality of grace, but from the Holy Spirit alone. In sales, it’s ideal to successfully cut the middle man. But in this case this is no way to save.

(more…)

Our last post touched on Bavinck’s theology of the covenant from his book Saved by Grace , (Reformation Heritage Books, 2008). From there we outlined the Reformed concept of salvation, rooted in God’s covenant, as the middle way when compared to the Romanist and Anabaptist concepts of receiving grace and salvation. We now pick the conversation back up in Bavinck’s RD (vol. 3, ch. 5), for some initial remarks on the covenant as both the nucleus and the dividing line of special revelation.

(more…)

Bavinck’s theology is looking for life; to articulate it, to revel in it, and to encapsulate it especially as it is found in the certainty and context of divine revelation. One of the best characteristics of Bavinck’s work is that his polemics and theological controversy are never battles over words and the consistency of artificial constructions. He is looking for the theory that best explains and enhances our shared experience and has found it in the Reformed expression of faith and life.

(more…)

Our last post summarized Bavinck’s definition of sin as a non-physical ethical force that is not exactly ‘non-being’ but certainly strives in that direction. Death, the result of sin, was pronounced as judgment in Genesis 2 but there is more mystery and complication to this ‘death sentence’ than there is certainty.

(more…)

Jeff Downs sent me some audio links from a Conference he put together featuring Stephen Nichols. The lectures were on Jonathan Edwards’ apologetic method. You can find the first lecture here and the second one here. They were apparently delivered sometime close to the release of An Absolute Sort of Certainty.

I asked my good friend Stephen Burch to contribute a few posts to the “Notes on the Apocalypse” series here at Feeding on Christ. Picking up at the end of Revelation 1, Burch notes:

Everyone needs the gospel at every point in life. There is never a point in life when we graduate from the gospel. The Apostle John towards the end on his life in no exception. John was perhaps the holiest and most mature man on the planet. Think of John’s stellar life. He walked with Jesus in his earthly ministry. He was present when Jesus was transfigured. He witnessed the cross. He saw the risen Jesus. At Pentecost, John was clothed with power. He had done miracles, planted Church’s, written 4 books of the Bible and been instrumental in who knows how many people coming to know and be matured in Jesus. But, all this does not mean John has moved past his need for the gospel!

(more…)

IF YOU ARE IN CHRIST JESUS BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH . . .

You are justified (made right with God) and have peace with God – Romans – 5:1

You died with Christ and died to the power of sin’s rule over your life – Romans 6:1-6

Your God is unlike any other, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage. He does not retain His anger forever, because He delights in mercy. He will again have compassion on you, and will subdue your iniquities. He will cast all your sins into the depths of the sea – Micah 7:18-19

Your sins have been removed from you as far as the east is from the west – Psalm 103:12

Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow – Isaiah 1:18
(more…)

In our last few posts we’ve been plowing through Bavinck’s analysis of original sin and what was lost by the fall. Human beings did not become ‘sub’ creatures after breaking the covenant or works, but something changed. The original relationship and integrity with God was destroyed when sin took advantage of the commandment. Here is a brief look at Bavinck’s analysis of the nature of sin in what he describes as ‘mystery in variety’.

(more…)

Our three part series on the superadded gift (SG) was pretty difficult and challenging. This was especially true in our small group study but we’re still friends despite any differences as we wrestle through Bavinck’s analysis and (to quote Thomas Watson) the treachery of our own hearts. This post briefly recaps and reflects on Bavinck’s main points on the superadded gift.

(more…)

We’ve been looking at one of the toughest elements in Bavinck’s analysis, freewill and the origin of sin. The long debate between Augustine and Pelagius has seen many attempts at reconciling these views, most all of which fail to be convincing. Bavinck’s critique of Pelagius is masterful, but will his claims for original sin and the natural law prove convincing? We shall see.

Scripture is complicated. It places the origin of sin in the heart of humanity* despite all the provisions (donum superadditum) to maintain her original righteousness. God created mankind in his image, including free personality, especially in holiness with a special endowment of grace that was lost at the fall. The eventual development of the doctrine of concupiscence from Augustine onward, viewed the gift as something of a ‘remedy and a bridle’ to curb the ‘war’ of flesh and spirit. This ‘war’ is natural to man as an earthly and spiritual being, argued a cautious Trent, and once the ‘bridle’ was removed Adam and his descendants “changed for the worse”. Concupiscence is not itself sin – but is inclined to sin – and there is little difference in human nature pre/post fall except the need for grace which is infused into the believer in baptism (Bellarmine). For Bavinck this view of concupiscence as ‘weakness’ in human nature is itself a little weak, requiring the qualification, “that whatever is in man, from the understanding to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, [it] has been defiled and crammed with this concup. … the whole of man is nothing but concup.” (Calvin). For Bavinck, original sin consists negatively in the loss of original righteousness, and positively, the corruption of nature rooted in Adam’s trespass.

Original sin is not a ‘war’ between flesh and spirit per se and Bavinck has been clear that defining sin as merely sensual cannot account for hate, envy, or enmity towards God. Humankind is not a pawn in a cosmic eternal struggle between good and evil (Manichean/pantheism) nor is sin non-being but is ultimately dependent on the good for its temporal, ethical operations. Human beings lost the image of God at the fall – which is not a superadded gift, but integral to human nature. The image of God is “displayed the knowledge, holiness, and righteousness”. Sin violated the holiness of the creature; where one was able to maintain and produce righteousness, that faculty (the whole being) now yields the very opposite. They/we didn’t become ‘devils’ but rather than fulfilling the law of God, human desire instead runs ‘after the flesh’ which can no longer be justified (Rom. 3:20, Gal. 3:2). And that’s total depravity: the inability and incapacity of fulfilling spiritual good and deserving eternal punishment. How so? God still required absolute obedience to the ‘law of the covenant of works’ which righteous requirement was brought into the covenant of grace and fulfilled by Christ.

____________
* ‘creature’ is a better term because it encompasses angelic beings. Bavinck’s analysis is focused on Adam, but accounts for angels when relevant.

Here are the complete MP3 audio files from my ordination service:

Dr. Philip G. Ryken – Sermon Preached at the Ordination of Nicholas T. Batzig (1 Cor. 16:1-9)

Rev. James T. Obrien – Charge to Nicholas T. Batzig

Dr. James E. McGoldrick – Charge to the Presbytery

In the following love note, Jonathan Edwards wrote about Sarah, his future wife, when she was only 13 years old. Notice what he finds beautiful about her and what she finds beautiful:

“They say there is a young lady in [New Haven] who is loved of that Great Being, who made and rules the world, and that there are certain seasons in which this Great Being, in some way or other invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight; and that she hardly cares for any thing, except to meditate on him that she expects after a while to be received up where he is, to be raised up out of the world and caught up into heaven; being assured that he loves her too well to let her remain at a distance from him always. There she is to dwell with him, and to be ravished with his love and delight forever. Therefore, if you present all the world before her, with the richest of its treasures, she disregards it and cares not for it, and is unmindful of any pain or affection. She has a strange sweetness in her mind, and singular purity in her affections; is most just and conscientious in all her conduct; and you could not persuade her to do any thing wrong or sinful, if you would give her all the world, lest she should offend this Great Being. She is of a wonderful sweetness, calmness, and universal benevolence of mind; especially after this Great God has manifested himself to her mind. She will sometimes go about from place to place, singing sweetly; and seems to be always full of joy and pleasure; and no one knows for what. She loves to be alone, walking in the fields and groves, and seems to have some one invisible always with her.”

(From: Edwards, Jonathan, “His Memoirs.” The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Banner of Truth, Vol. 1, xxxix xl, 1723.) (more…)

Our last post looked at the fickle problem of the origin of sin. Bavinck’s analysis of Genesis 3 holds that sin’s origin is not explained by the narrative yet it is described in historical terms. The fall of humanity is not itself having the content of the knowledge of good and evil, but the manner in which they would obtain it: apart from God’s guidance and care. So what was lost by the fall? A preternatural gift of grace? The image of God? The answer may surprise you.

Sin is a mystery. It has no right to exist; it has no substance, yet its fruits are evident on a universal scale. Despite sin’s self evident misery a concise definition and description of it is an enormous undertaking. Bavinck’s main objective is to prove that sin is not merely the sensual human nature, or merely a matter of freewill. If sin was purely sensual and carnal, envy, pride, hatred, enmity to God, etc. could never be explained. Human culture and refinement would eventually curb carnal or sensual desires, which is far from experience and contrary to the tenor of the divine covenants. What matters most is that sin is a possibility, phenomena that occurred in the human imagination (á Kempis) and came into existence through the rational faculty of the will in direct disobedience to the law of God.

(more…)

At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples two questions (Matthew 16:13-17). The first was, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” The second was, “But who do you say that I am?” The disciples wasted no time in answering the first: “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, but still others, Jeremiah or one of the old prophets.” This is a striking answer on many levels. The people thought very highly of Jesus. They did not curse Him at this point. They did not spit in His face yet. But the answers they gave fell short, very short, of the true honor that He deserves. John H. Skilton once wrote:

According to the report of the disciples…some were saying that Jesus was John the Baptist. Those who expressed this view may have thought that they were paying Jesus a very high tribute indeed. John was the promised forerunner of the Messiah; he was a man, a messenger sent from God, (John 1:6); and he had been filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Prophecy had been revived in him, the word of God came to him (Luke 3:2); in the spirit and power of Elijah, as had been said, he went before the Lord, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:17). Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about the Jordan had gone out to him and been baptized in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Matt. 3:5-6). Jesus Himself, in fulfilling all righteousness for His people, had come to John for baptism (Matt. 3:13-15). He had testified of John “Among them that are born of women there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist…

John, however, was now dead. To hold that Jesus was John the Baptist, in the sense that seems to be intended here (cf . Mark 6:14-16; Matthew 14:2; Luke 9:7-9), would be to regard him as risen from the dead–and risen, probably, to bring in the day of the Lord. This was a high view of Jesus, and its advocates thought that it did justice to the special revelation that God had given. But this view did not meet with our Lord’s approval. It did not confess the truth about Him. It would seek to honor Him by identifying Him with a forerunner of the Messiah and not with the Messiah Himself. It did not represent saving, Christian faith.

(more…)

Our last post hit the mid-point of Bavinck’s Prolegomena.* His dilemma was choosing between three schools of thought that best explained life; paving the way for scientific certainty. These schools are: rationalism, empiricism and realism. For Bavinck, realism goes hand in hand with the presupposition that God has revealed himself in the world, and the best place to find this revelation is scripture. There is, however, a slight complication.

Dogma has its object of study the revelation of God in scripture. It assures us that God has spoken and that the church is certain in its creedal and doctrinal expressions of faith. When it comes to the problem of evil and the origin of sin there is no easy answer, and Bavinck himself admits that here, realism helps little. There are many angles at which to look at the Genesis 3 narrative and most of which fall short of the biblical meaning. An empirical approach might say that attaining the knowledge of evil was a ‘step of progress’ and beneficial to advancing civilization. Rationalists (i.e. Remonstrants, Pelagians, Socinians, etc.) have said that sin is never really sin, it’s just a choice in the will that sooner of later we can evolve out of. These answers are hardly satisfying considering that God does not have the empirical knowledge of evil, so it would have been impossible to become like God in that regard. As for the freedom of the will: it is free, but it is not always good (Augustine) and it is impossible to overcome sin by reason alone. (more…)

Here is a sermon by Joel Beeke on Christ being forsaken at the cross.

I have been waiting to promote the church plant for some time now, but as I was looking at statistics on Google Analytics it appears that there have been several visits from towns in and around Richmond Hill, Ga. If you live in close proximity and are interested in being part of a Reformed church plant, please contact Nick Batzig at nbatzig@gmail.com. I will be posting a link to the website in the weeks ahead. If you are interested in hearing my sermons please visit the sermons page on this site.