Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck: Revelation, Confession, and Christian Consciousness (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780197665879, 019766587X

Citation preview

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz † Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia

THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening

FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma THE FLESH OF THE WORD The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K. J. Drake JOHN DAVENANT’S HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSALISM A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J. Lynch RHETORICAL ECONOMY IN AUGUSTINE’S THEOLOGY Brian Gronewoller GRACE AND CONFORMITY The Reformed Conformist Tradition and the Early Stuart Church of England Stephen Hampton MAKING ITALY ANGLICAN Why the Book of Common Prayer Was Translated into Italian Stefano Villani AUGUSINE ON MEMORY Kevin G. Grove UNITY AND CATHOLICITY IN CHRIST The Ecclesiology of Francisco Suarez, S.J. Eric J. DeMeuse

CALVINIST CONFORMITY IN POST-​REFORMATION ENGLAND The Theology and Career of Daniel Featley Gregory A. Salazar

BISSCHOP’S BENCH Contours of Arminian Conformity in the Church of England, c.1674–​1742 Samuel Fornecker

RETAINING THE OLD EPISCOPAL DIVINITY John Edwards of Cambridge and Reformed Orthodoxy in the Later Stuart Church Jake Griesel

JOHN LOCKE’S THEOLOGY An Ecumenical, Irenic, and Controversial Project Jonathan S. Marko

BEARDS, AZYMES, AND PURGATORY The Other Issues that Divided East and West A. Edward Siecienski

THEOLOGY AND HISTORY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF HERMAN BAVINCK Revelation, Confession, and Christian Consciousness Cameron D. Clausing

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck Revelation, Confession, and Christian Consciousness C A M E R O N D. C L AU SI N G

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2024 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0–​19–​766587–​9 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.001.0001 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

For Taryn, Grace, and Calvin

Contents Acknowledgements  Abbreviations for Herman Bavinck’s works 

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian 

xi xiii

1

1. Bavinck: The Intellectual Context 

16

2. Theological Method 

59

3. Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation 

97

4. Trinity and Retrieval: Confession 

132

5. Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness 

172

Conclusion 

212

Appendix  Bibliography  Index 

217 219 239

Acknowledgements This book began as a PhD thesis at the University of Edinburgh. To name the all people who walked with me as I prepared this would require much time. In taking on a project like this, you are reminded that you do not stand alone, and behind you (or perhaps better under you) is a great multitude. I must open by acknowledging my primary supervisor, James Eglinton, without whom none of this would have happened. From the first email to the final edits of this project, he has been a constant encouragement, my most critical reader, and a mentor-​scholar in the truest sense of the title. I will always be indebted to him for the countless hours he has put into this project. I am also thankful for Simon Burton and Ulrich Schmiedel, who read and revised multiple chapters giving me insights into early modern Reformed orthodoxy and nineteenth-​century German theology. I frequently say that this project was formed in the pubs of Edinburgh as I talked to Zachary Purvis, Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, Cory Brock, Greg Parker, Andrew Johnson, Joshua Ralston, Nomi Pritz-​Bennett, and others about theology. Those countless hours discussing history, theology, and solving the world’s problems will always be the highlight of my time putting this project together. I am also thankful for the keen eyes of David Fergusson and Simeon Zahl both of whom pushed the argument and provided significant feedback. In their own unique ways, their fingerprints are on this project and helped to move it from a thesis to a book. I could not have brought this project into its current form without their wise counsel and guidance. I will be forever grateful for their input and erudite interaction with the work. A word of thanks should be given to Richard Muller the series editor. It is an honour to have this work included in this series. Richard’s feedback was incredibly helpful as I thought how to turn my thesis into a book. I should also mention both Kelly Kapic and Scott Swain who have looked at this work and provided helpful comments. Three institutions require special recognition: Theologische Universiteit Kampen in the Netherlands. My one-​month research fellowship pushed my book forward giving me access to a multitude of resources as well as a location from which I could get to the Bavinck archives. Working with Hans Burger

xii Acknowledgements helped to focus many of my early thoughts of this project. The second institution which must be mentioned is Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, GA. The first version of this project was finished during the one-​year visiting assistant professorship which they awarded me. Access to the library and the help of the library staff at Covenant afforded me many opportunities to travel down unexpected paths. My colleagues at the college also sharpened the arguments in this thesis as they were in the final stages of development. Interacting with Scott Jones, Kelly Kapic, Hans Madueme, Jeff Dryden, Dan MacDougall, Herb Ward, and Ken Stewart was not only intellectually stimulating but also spiritually revitalizing. Covenant College will always hold a special place in my heart, and the experience there left an indelible mark on this thesis. Third, and finally, I want to thank Christ College in Sydney, Australia, the institution in which I currently work. The encouragement of colleagues and the support of the staff have made this project come together. A special thank you to one of my students, Paul Byun, for his assistance with the index. In many ways, I have been able to test my argument both in conversations with faculty and with the students. It has only made the project better. Finally, I thank the Lord for my family. I would never have finished this project if it had not been for my beautiful wife, Taryn. Taryn’s constant belief in me, her ear to listen when I whinged, and her regular admonition to ‘get it done!’ helped me to finish. My children Grace and Calvin made this process both more enjoyable (and longer). Calvin regularly reminded me that I need to take myself less seriously. Yet, he made it impossible for me to work at home. Grace has reminded me why I am doing what I am doing. She has made life more colourful. I am so thankful to the Lord that he has brought these people into my life and given me this family.—​Soli Deo Gloria

Abbreviations for Herman Bavinck’s works Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. vol. 1, ed. 4. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. vol. 2, ed. 4. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. vol. 3, ed. 4. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1929. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. vol. 4, ed. 4. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1930. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume One: Prolegomena. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. RD2 Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Two: God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. RD3 Reformed Dogamtics, Volume Three: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. RD4 Reformed Dogmatics, Volume Four: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. GD1 GD2 GD3 GD4 RD1

Herman Bavinck The Development of a Theologian

In 1869, when Herman Bavinck was fourteen years old his father, the Christian Reformed pastor Jan Bavinck, penned an editorial in the first edition of De Getuigenis, a monthly youth magazine, which focused on theological engagement that was faithful to orthodox Reformed theology in the late modern Dutch context.1 In this column he wrote, ‘In the present time, the intellectual climate is universal. Even our church feels the influence of the time in which she finds herself. In particular, our young people can no more withdraw from the influence of the Zeitgeist than they can protect themselves from it’.2 Dutch church culture in the nineteenth century felt the all-​pervasive influence of late modern thought. Herman Bavinck would recognize this in 1911 when reflecting on the experience of puberty. Echoing his father’s insight, he acknowledged that all adolescents, regardless of time or culture, experience tensions around how to relate to everything their parents and ancestors give them, and the future they want to create for themselves. Herman thought that many modern Dutch teens experienced the struggle between faith and unbelief more intensely in the late modern context.3 Instead of fighting a battle to hermetically seal his son off from the Zeitgeist, Jan sought a better way to engage the cultural influences. Aside from editing a youth magazine, in his family life, Jan worked to make his children conscious of the Zeitgeist. The educational path of Herman, the subject of our current study, provides a paradigmatic example of Jan’s desire to raise children who were both 1 Eglinton argues that the ‘Spring of Nations’ in 1848 functions as the marker between early modern and late modern. As to Jan Bavinck’s undertaking of the editorial duties of this magazine, Eglinton argues it was out of fatherly concern. See: James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), xix. 2 Jan Bavinck and Helenius de Cock, ‘Inleiding’ in De Getuigenis. Maandschrift in het belang van Waarheid en Godzaligheid, Eerste Jaargang (Kampen, 1869), 3–​4. ‘Ook onze kerk ondervindt den invloed van den tijd waarin zij zich bevindt. Onze jongelingen vooral zijn het, die aan den invloed van den tijdgeest zoo min onttrokken kunnen worden, als dat zij er zich van kunnen vrijwaren’. 3 Herman Bavinck, De opvoeding der rijpere jeugd (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1916), 75–​79.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0001

2  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck orthodox and modern. Herman was given an education which both engaged in his church’s tradition (he studied in the Reformed and orthodox Theological School in Kampen) and the thoroughly modern Zeitgeist of the academy (he finished a doctorate at the University of Leiden). It was this sentiment of his father’s that Herman would develop over the years in his own work and some forty years later would himself echo, stating: ‘all trends and factions are in greater or lesser measure busy in reconstruction (Neubau), and they are exerting themselves in this work in order to reconcile ancient Christianity with modern culture’.4 The question of how one relates historic Christianity to modern culture was a pressing question for Jan Bavinck as he raised his son, Herman, and late into Herman’s career it continued to be a driving question in his own theological reflection.5 Undeniably this topic was not new to the Bavincks; it is a perennial concern for Christians. We need only look at the church father Tertullian’s famous dictum, ‘What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?’6 For Bavinck, the question that might be asked is, ‘What indeed has Berlin to do with Kampen?’, taking ‘Berlin’ as a cipher for the ‘Academy’ and ‘Kampen’ as a cipher for the ‘Church’. This question dominated much of Herman Bavinck’s life and work. Before this project continues it would be helpful to offer a brief overview of the life and work of Herman Bavinck and demonstrate how this tension played out in some of the educational and career decisions he made.7 Bavinck was born at a moment in intellectual history when questions surrounding the relationship between the church and the academy were most pronounced. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–​1834) had worked in the first part of that century to 4 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 80; Herman Bavinck, Modernisme en Orthodoxie: rede gehouden bij de overdacht van het Rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1911 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1911), 15. 5 This reading of the relationship between the Bavincks breaks with what has been the received narrative wherein Jan longed to maintain a pietistic orthodoxy in his son, sealing him off from the modern world, and Herman was accepting of modern thought. See: Valentijn Hepp, Dr Herman Bavinck (Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1921). My reading follows the one presented by Eglinton in Bavinck: A Critical Biography, 17–​55. 6 Tertullian, ‘The Prescription Against Heretics’, 7 in ANF 3.246. Bavinck cites Tertullian when discussing classical education and the place of it in Christian education. See: Herman Bavinck, ‘Klassieke opleiding’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921), 222; ‘Classical Education’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 211. 7 For a timeline of Bavinck’s life see the Appendix. What follows is dependent on the work of James Eglinton and his critical biography of Herman Bavinck, see: Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography. My biographical account of Bavinck’s life throughout this book follows Eglinton closely.

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  3 bring the two together in Berlin. In his Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, Schleiermacher put forth a proposal which called for theology to be an academic discipline with a rightful place in the academy, for it was, as Schleiermacher viewed it, a ‘positive science’.8 He also saw its role as being principally for the development of healthy piety.9 Born in 1854, Bavinck grew up in the aftermath of Schleiermacher’s grand project. Jan Bavinck understood the context in which he was both ministering as a pastor in the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands and raising a family. It was a decidedly modern society; one influenced by thinkers like Kant and Lessing wherein one would not be persecuted for not adhering to the state-​approved church. The Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlands Hervormde Kerk), the mainline Reformed church in the Netherlands, theologically drew upon the historic reformed creeds and confessions.10 However, during this period in Dutch church history it began to lean heavily on the theological developments coming out of Germany, most notably influenced by Schleiermacher and Hegel.11 At this point, one needs to exercise caution. Neither Jan Bavinck nor the church in which he was a minister was completely cut off from the philosophical and theological influences coming out of Germany.12 In fact, inside the Seceder movement (the group of clergy and churches which broke from the mainline Dutch Reformed Church in 1834) there could be found both a pietist streak and another which was more open to ‘modern culture’.13 For Bavinck’s education, Jan enrolled him in a pre-​gymnasium, Hasselman Institute, which was run by a Seceder and supportive of his faith. Following this Herman was enrolled at the prestigious Gymnasium in Zwolle, a place that produced politicians, doctors, pastors, professors, and the only Dutch Pope (Pope Adrian IV). It was here that Herman received an education which grounded him in the classics.14 The school would set Bavinck on a trajectory that would take him anywhere he would want to go. However, upon 8 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, 3rd ed., trans. Terrence Tice (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), §1. 9 Ibid., §21, 55–​57. 10 The historic doctrinal standards for the Dutch Reformed are known as The Three Forms of Unity. It is comprised of the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. 11 For a more comprehensive reading of the movement of German theological and philosophical thought into the Dutch context during the nineteenth century, see: George Harinck and Lodewijk Winkeler ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 435–​517. 12 Jan himself had come from Germany to the Netherlands as a minister. 13 Eglinton, Bavinck, 84. 14 Ibid., 48–​50.

4  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck graduating from Zwolle Gymnasium, Herman took a different academic path from his peers, enrolling in the Theological School in Kampen in 1873. Since 1854 the Theological School had attempted to be ‘scientific’ in its approach to theology. Nevertheless, the school’s attempt was not always successful, and Herman would quickly become dissatisfied with the school staying as a full-​ time student just one year.15 In 1874 he began his studies at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands’ oldest and most prodigious university. He became a student of Johannes Scholten (1811–​1885), a Dutch theologian known for his intensely modernist theological project. Even though Bavinck was Scholten’s student, the Leiden Old Testament scholar Abraham Kuenen (1828–​1891) proved to be more influential in Bavinck’s studies. Kuenen had taught Herman how to go about the task of historical theology. He had an irenic approach to those with whom he disagreed, and he was a theological polymath (teaching ethics, historical theology, as well as in his discipline of the Old Testament). Given these factors and the fact that Scholten’s prime was well into the past, Kuenen functioned as Bavinck’s de facto doctoral supervisor.16 By 1880, Bavinck finished his doctoral work, producing a thesis on the ethics of Ulrich Zwingli.17 That same year he passed his theological exams at Kampen. Before the completion of his doctorate Herman was approached by Abraham Kuyper (1837–​1920), a national figure in the church, politics and a person whom Bavinck admired, to come and teach at Kuyper’s newly founded Free University of Amsterdam. While tempted with this offer, Bavinck turned Kuyper down, and instead he took a call to a parish church in Franeker in 1881. This would not be the last time Kuyper approached him nor would it be the last time Bavinck turned him down.18 That same year Bavinck agreed to edit a new edition of the Synopsis purioris theologiae, an early modern Reformed document which explicates the theology affirmed at the Synod of Dort.19 This was Bavinck’s first academic project after his doctoral work. Bavinck would stay in Franeker for just over one year before he was appointed by the Christian Reformed Church as a lecturer at the Theological School in Kampen.

15 Ibid., 35–​37; 60–​63; George Harinck and Wim Berkelaar, Domineesfabriek: Geschiedenis van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2018). 16 Eglinton, Bavinck, 96–​99. 17 Herman Bavinck, De ethiek van Ulrich Zwingli (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1880). 18 Eglinton, Bavinck, 101–​104. 19 Herman Bavinck, Synopsis purioris theologiae (Leiden: Donner, 1881).

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  5 Bavinck lectured and wrote in Kampen from 1882 to 1902. During this period, he was prolific. His work primarily focused on theological construction,20 reviews of contemporary scholarship,21 and works trying to find a path between the academy and the church.22 However, the most important project that Bavinck developed in this time was the first edition of his Reformed Dogmatics (1895–​1902). This was a four-​volume work of dogmatic theology that walked through many of the loci of theology starting with prolegomena and finishing with eschatology. In 1902, after three failed attempts to lure Bavinck to the Free University, Kuyper finally got him to come to Amsterdam, and Bavinck took up a post teaching theology there. He would edit his Reformed Dogmatics in the following years; culminating in a significantly revised second edition completed in 1911. His work also shifted focus to questions surrounding Christian engagement in society considering everything from Christian worldview23 to evolution24 to pedagogy.25 In 1911 Bavinck was elected to the second chamber of the Dutch parliament—​a part-​ time political role held alongside his work at the Free University. On 29 July 1921, Bavinck died in Amsterdam. Throughout his life, Bavinck’s educational and career choices demonstrated the constant tension he felt between the academy and the church, between orthodoxy and modernity. As has already been noted, after one year at Kampen he went to the University of Leiden. After Leiden instead of a job in academic theology, Bavinck took a pastorate to make himself available to get a job in Kampen. A year into the pastorate, he went to a job at the Theological School in Kampen, a position that was not going to give him the most stimulating engagement with ‘scientific’ theology available in the Netherlands. Yet,

20 E.g., Herman Bavinck, ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 19 (2008), 127–​142; ‘Calvijn’s leer over het Avondmaal’, De Vrije Kerk 13:10 (October 1887), 459–​486. 21 E.g., De theologie van Prof. Dr. Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye: bijdrage tot de kennis der ethische theologie (Leiden: Donner, 1884). 22 E.g., ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), 220–​251; cf. Herman Bavinck, De katholiciteit van christendom en kerk: rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theol. School te Kampen op 18 December 1888 (Kampen: G. Ph. Zalsman, 1888) 23 Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview, eds. and trans. Cory C. Brock, James Eglinton, and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019); Christelijke wereldbeschouwing: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20 October 1904 (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1904). 24 Herman Bavinck, ‘Evolution’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 105–​118; ‘Evolutie’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921), 1921. 25 Herman Bavinck, Paedagogische beginselen (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1904).

6  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck there was, for Bavinck, a deep commitment to his church and to the academy in all of this. By the end of his life, he had spent almost two decades at the Free University of Amsterdam. In Amsterdam he was both a theologian and a politician. Even while Bavinck’s life and work brought to fruition much of what his father, Jan, had hoped for, by the end of his life Bavinck knew World War I had closed off the era of Jan Bavinck forever. A new course would need to be charted into the future. Needless to say, Bavinck’s thought is complex. Due to this complexity and his thoroughgoing engagement with a variety of sources across the theological spectrum various readings of his work have been produced. The question persists in Bavinck scholarship: ‘What indeed has Berlin to do with Kampen?’ This relationship between modernity and orthodoxy in Bavinck’s writings is not original to this thesis. John Bolt’s examination of Bavinck’s use of the Imitaitio Christi theme is subtitled ‘Between Pietism and Modernism’.26 Jan Veenhof ’s Revelatie en inspiratie, as well as Adam Eitel’s essay on Bavinck and Hegel highlight the distinctly post-​Enlightenment thought present in Bavinck’s project.27 Others have seen in Bavinck’s thought a pronounced pre-​modern stream with what some have called a Thomist flavour.28 These two readings have answered the question ‘What does Berlin have to do with Kampen?’ with a decidedly negative even antagonistic ‘nothing’, either seeing Bavinck as primarily interested in the project of Vermittlungstheologie (i.e., the real Bavinck lives in Berlin) or as an attempt to return to Reformed orthodoxy (i.e., the real Bavinck lives in Kampen). In both cases Bavinck is deemed to have been altogether unsuccessful in his project, in that he was neither modern nor orthodox. Ultimately this bifurcation in Bavinck’s thought has led to a divide in Bavinck scholarship that historically has been termed as the ‘two Bavincks hypothesis’,29 in which particular authors see two distinctly 26 E.g., John Bolt, A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck’s Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi: Between Pietism and Modernism (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2013). 27 Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie. De openbarings—​ en schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die van de ethische theologie (Amsterdam: Buijten and Schipperheijn, 1968); Adam Eitel, ‘Trinity and History: Bavinck, Hegel, and Nineteenth-​Century Doctrines of God’ in Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck: A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology, ed. John Bolt (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen, 2011), 101–​128. 28 See: David Sytsma, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Thomistic Epistemology: The Argument and Sources of his Principia of Science’ in Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck: A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology, ed. John Bolt (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen, 2011), 1–​56; Arvin Vos, ‘Knowledge According to Bavinck and Aquinas’ (Part I), The Bavinck Review 6 (2015), 9–​36; ‘Knowledge According to Bavinck and Aquinas’ (Part II), The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 8–​62. 29 Henk van den Belt has noted that this debate is a particularly Anglophone discussion. He has demonstrated that in the Netherlands it has always been understood that Bavinck is a man who has various tensions without necessarily being bifurcated. (Henk van den Belt, “Herman Bavinck’s Appropriation of Reformed Sources,” paper presented at Bavinck Centenary Conference,

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  7 different Bavincks; one a son of the Dutch Reformed orthodox tradition with a decidedly pietistic streak, and the other a thoroughly post-​Kantian thinker. Both readings produce an inconsistent Bavinck who is never able to connect these two poles in his thinking adequately. What follows from this is a split in Bavinck scholarship which has left the field relatively fallow in the Anglophone world. However, in recent years, Anglophone scholars have begun the work of plowing the field making it potentially more fruitful for the years to come from a reading of Bavinck that allows for a unified account of his thought. Most importantly James Eglinton has argued for a path forward that sees the use of the ‘organic’ motif in Bavinck’s project as a unifying tool in which Bavinck could hold together both unity and diversity, modernity and orthodoxy. Eglinton contends ‘that Bavinck’s theology of Creator as Trinity necessitates the conceptualization of creation as organism. Trinity ad intra leads to organism ad extra’.30 Building on and critiquing Eglinton’s work, Cory Brock, Nathaniel Sutanto, and Bruce Pass have argued for a Bavinck who, while appreciative of and utilizing late modern philosophical and theological sources and categories, still maintained a deep commitment to his orthodox Reformed heritage.31 Each of these projects sees Bavinck’s utilization of the organic motif as more or less successful in maintaining a unified, if not always satisfying, engagement with both modernity and orthodoxy. Eglinton and others have done admirable work in plowing straight lines in

Brisbane, Australia, December 2021). The debate has taken place and can be seen in various forums. See: Hepp, Dr Herman Bavinck; Eugene Heideman, The Relationship of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959); Rolf H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1961); Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie; Henk Vroom, ‘Scripture Read and Interpreted: The Development of the Doctrine of Scripture and Hermeneutics in Gereformeerde Theology in the Netherlands’, Calvin Theological Journal 28:2 (1993); John Bolt, ‘Grand Rapids Between Kampen and Amsterdam: Herman Bavinck’s Reception and Influence in North America’, Calvin Theological Journal 38:2 (2003); Malcolm Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine (Nashville: Boosey and Hawkes, 2007); David van Drunen, ‘ “The Kingship of Christ is Twofold”: Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms in the Thought of Herman Bavinck’, Calvin Theological Journal 45:1 (2010). 30 James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 81. 31 Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Eclecticism: On catholicity, consciousness and theological epistemology’, Scottish Jounral of Theology 70:3 (2017); Cory Brock, Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020); Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology (London: T&T Clark, 2020); Bruce Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics: Christology and Christocentrism in Herman Bavinck (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020).

8  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck the field of Bavinck studies.32 Nevertheless, there is more that can be done to explore some of the tensions that endure in Bavinck’s project, granting that any simple solution is far from ideal or even possible. As the current study will show, Bavinck was a multifaceted thinker with many nuanced views. To claim a solution that resolves every tension in his thought would most likely produce an artificial reading of Bavinck. Therefore, I will show in this book that contemporary Anglophone scholarship which assumes a reading of Bavinck that both acknowledges the tension in his thought but denies a reading that produces large portions of Bavinck’s corpus which are incompatible with each other is the most accurate reading. This study aims to contribute to this movement in Bavinck scholarship by examining his theological method in the light of the nineteenth-​century ‘historical turn’. The ‘historical turn’ (or ‘historicism’) was a movement in which history became a science in its own right. I will argue throughout this project that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of that movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. While it would be an overstatement to say that the rise of history as a science was determinative for all theological thinking in the nineteenth century, it is not too much to say that it was one of the most important movements in both theological and philosophical thought in the nineteenth century.33 No study has yet taken up the influence of historicism on Bavinck and Bavinck’s theological project. Thus, a careful examination of Bavinck’s theological method in light of the nineteenth-​ century turn to history might provide a few seeds which when planted in the freshly tilled field of Bavinck studies could produce fruit, which in turn could nourish reflection on the topic of Bavinck as a constructive dogmatician and the relationship his late modern sources have to his pre-​modern and confessional sources and Scripture. The current project intends to fill this gap. Through a careful study of Bavinck’s theological methodology, as applied to his Trinitarian theology,

32 Along a similar line of thought, but not looking to the organic motif, various other authors have offered a unified reading of Bavinck. See: George Harinck, ‘ “Something that must remain, if the truth is to be sweet and precious to us”: The Reformed Spirituality of Herman Bavinck’, Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003); Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 229–​300; Brian Mattson, Restored to Our Destiny: Eschatology and the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 33 Elizabeth A. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 9–​28.

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  9 I will show the way in which Bavinck attempted to walk the line between modernity and orthodoxy specifically with respect to the historical turn. Of particular importance for the current study will be the role of historical creeds and confessions. Creeds and confessions are especially interesting as they bring the nineteenth-​century historicist project into the purview of this project. For Protestants, and particularly Reformed theology, the place of church tradition, creeds, and confessions, requires extended reflection. The reason for this is that the so-​called formal principle of the Reformation, sola Scriptura, not only produces church reform, but it also lends itself to the possibility of dissolving the catholicity of the church, in that sola Scriptura can easily devolve into solo Scriptura, and the interpretative equivalent to the book of Judges ensues: ‘everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes’. Thus, we are left not with one universal catholic church but many small churches.34 Bavinck was aware of this possibility throughout his life and the nineteenth-​century turn to history only highlighted this difficulty for him. This study will show that Bavinck’s work is a constructive attempt to grapple both with the history of the church while seeing the theological development which flows out of sola Scriptura as a necessary part of being ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.35 Applying these thoughts to his Trinitarian theology in particular, in what could be understood to be an attempt to ‘reverse engineer’ his thought in this area, will provide a helpful litmus test for his theological methodology and the influence of historicism. In historical context Trinitarian theology in the nineteenth century provides a useful map on which to plot Bavinck’s constructive project. While in the early nineteenth century G.W.F. Hegel (1770–​ 1831) had incited something of a revival in speculative Trinitarian thought, the late nineteenth century–​with thinkers such as Albrecht Ritschl (1822–​1889), Wilhelm Herrmann (1846–​1922), Adolf von Harnack (1851–​1930), and Ernst Troeltsch (1865–​1923)—​saw the evaporation of interest in Protestant Trinitarian reflection. That being said, as Samuel Powell has noted, ‘conservative Protestants remained steadfastly loyal’ to Trinitarian theology.36 This stood in contrast to liberal theology where ‘the doctrine was not so much expressly denied as displaced from a position of importance’.37 Given what 34 This charge is leveled against the Reformation and it will be explored in Chapter 4. 35 Bavinck, ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 36; Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 82. 36 Samuel Powell, The Trinity in German Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 142. 37 Ibid., 171.

10  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Powell has observed as a rather significant divergence regarding the place of Trinitarian theology in the theological projects in the nineteenth century, examining how Bavinck envisioned the Trinity in his context will shed more light on the interplay between late modern theology and Reformed orthodoxy in Bavinck’s project. The pressing question will be the extent to which the nineteenth-​century turn to history in philosophical and theological reflection affected Bavinck’s theological method. Bavinck understood that attempting to ‘repristinate’ one’s theological tradition from an older supposedly pure form was a fool’s errand. Speaking of the task of a Reformed theologian, Bavinck said: They do not wish to repristinate, and have no desire for the old conditions to return. . . . As children of their time they do not scorn the good things which God in this age also has given them; forgetting the things that are behind, they stretch forward to the things that are before. They strive to make progress to escape from the deadly embrace of dead conservatism.38

Bavinck believed that theological development was a vital part of a constructive project, going so far as to declare in 1881, ‘a Christian Dogmatic does not yet exist’.39 The reason for this being that, for Bavinck, dogma is not the source of a single theologian or church but the confession of the ‘Christian Church as a whole’.40 There is no ideal theology on earth, all theological reflection is mixed with both pure and impure elements. Therefore, theological development is necessary.41 Yet, as has been shown above there are some who would maintain that Bavinck’s theology is a mere recapitulation of Reformed orthodox theology. Thus, the question remains to what extent Bavinck is faithful to his 38 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Future of Calvinism’, trans. Geerhardus Vos, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5 (1894), 13; ‘Het calvinisme in Nederland en zijne toekomst’, Tijdschrift voor Gereformeerde Theologie 3 (1896), 146. 39 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 94; ‘Het voor en tegen van een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren, verzalmeld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 60. In this way Bavinck’s thought is similar to that of John Webster who argued that his goal in retrieval is not a return to an apparently pristine version of theological reasoning, believing that this will provide a purer form of doctrine. Theological retrieval has an eye toward theological development. See: John Webster, ‘Theologies of Retrieval’ in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, eds. Kathryn Tanner, John Webster, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 40 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 94; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 60. 41 Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en godgeleerdheid: Rede gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het Hoogleeraarsambt in de Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op Woensdag 17 December 1902 (Wageningen: Vada, 1902), 59.

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  11 expressed desire to move theological reflection forward. Did Bavinck maintain a distance from modern Protestantism’s revisionist program in the area of Trinitarian theology? Or did Bavinck do something, even in the area of Trinitarian theology, that betrays a context in which the turn to history is a major factor? To answer the questions posed, this thesis will consider Bavinck’s theological methodology in its historical context. The opening chapter will look carefully at the nineteenth-​century turn to history. That chapter will situate the historical turn in the broader discussion of the rise of history as an independent science in its own right. This will necessarily lead to some reflection on the mid-​eighteenth century when history began to become a discipline in the German academy and was working to find its place. Bergjan has noted that up until this point the theological faculties in the university understood history to be little more than a rhetorical tool for illustrating the truth of a dogmatic assertion.42 This can be observed in the theological encyclopaedia of Gottlieb Jakob Planck, whose attitude functions as paradigmatic for the German academy at that time. If that time is over among us, if a freer spirit now leads our doctrinal investigations, if, among us it is possible now to say loudly that no dogmatic idea is true merely because old Athanasius or the Council of Nicaea declared it to be true, let alone false merely because St Augustine and few African councils view it as heretical—​then whom have we to thank for this but church history, which alone revealed, and could reveal, the concerns that all too often motivated the good Church Fathers in their statements, and the Councils in their decisions.43

The theologian no longer accepted a doctrinal position solely because a particular figure in history asserted that it was the truth. Church fathers ceased 42 Silke-​Petra Bergjan, ‘Die Beschäftigung mit der Alten Kirche an deutschen Universitäten in den Umbrüchen der Auklärung’ in Zwischen Altertumswissenschaft und Theologie. Zur Relevanz der Patristik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, eds. Christoph Marschies and Johannes van Oort (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 31–​32. 43 G.J. Planck, Einleitung in die theologische Wissenschaften, vol. 1 of 2 (Leipzig: 1974), 109. German: Wenn jetzt diese Zeit bey uns vorüber ist, wenn uns jetz ein frenere Geist bey unseren dogmatischen Untersuchungen leitet, wenn man es jetzt laut unter uns sagen darf, dass keine dogmatische Idee schon deswegen wahr ist, weil sie der alte Athanas‘ und die Nicaische Synode für wahr erklärte, und noch weniger schon deswegen falsch ist, weil der heilige Augustin und einge Afrikanische Concilien ein ketzeren darinn sahen—​wem haben wir es zu danken, als der kirschengeschichte, die uns allein aufdeckte, und allein audeckten konnte, was den guten kirchenvätern nur alzuoft ihre Aussprüche, und den Concilien ihre Entscheidungen eingab.

12  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck being used as proof texts but as, Johannes Zachhuber has noted, a ‘systematic coherence’ was necessary so as to present the material ‘in such a way that the relationship between individual event becomes plausible to the reader and its reconstruction accountable to the community of historians’.44 The implications of this are that an intimate relationship developed between the disciplines of history, philosophy, and theology. Locating Bavinck in the midst of this turn to history which flourished in the nineteenth century allows us to evaluate the extent to which the historical turn influenced his theological methodology. After having laid out the historical and philosophical context with regard to the rise of historicism in the nineteenth century, Chapter 2 will consider Bavinck’s theological method in light of this historical turn. This chapter begins to answer the question of the extent to which the historical turn influenced Bavinck’s theological methodology. Before breaking the method down into its various parts, this chapter will allow us to see the method in its entirety. Bavinck argues that revelation, confession, and Christian consciousness are all principia in his theological methodology. Prior to examining each of these on their own terms, we need to understand how Bavinck saw them fitting together as a whole. In a sense, this instinct flows out of Bavinck’s own theological proclivity in understanding theological method as an organism, for ‘just as in every organism the whole precedes the parts’.45 This chapter links the exploration of historicism to the final three chapters and functions to set up the rest of the thesis in which each of the three distinct prongs of Bavinck’s theological methodology is looked at individually and applied to his Trinitarian theology. This is done to break down Bavinck’s theological methodology as applied to his Trinitarian theology in order to help us better determine the influence of historicism on his theological methodology. The third chapter acts as a turning point for the entire thesis. There, I begin the test case of Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology. In this chapter, I will move from the general to the specific. To what extent can one see the influence of the historical turn on Bavinck’s theological method when one looks at the Trinity? Chapter 3 considers Bavinck’s engagement with revelation. For Bavinck, the starting place of theological reasoning is Deus dixit. God has spoken and in that he has revealed himself. This conviction functions to ground all of Bavinck’s theological project. As it relates to the Trinity, for 44 Johannes Zachhuber, Theology as Science in Nineteenth-​Century Germany: From F.C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 7. 45 Bavinck, RD4, 332; GD4, 313.

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  13 Bavinck the climax of the revelation of God is seen in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit.46 Because of this understanding of revelation, Bavinck sees all of revelation as bearing a Trinitarian shape. Thus, for Bavinck revelation is never less than words, but also more than words; the missions of the Son and the Spirit are the communicative actions of the Triune God that interpret all other communicative action of the Triune God. Therefore, what Chapter 3 ultimately points to is that the missions ad extra flow out of the processions ad intra. Chapter 3 thus demonstrates how Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology finds its principal grounding in Scripture, the written, objective revelation of God. The chapter will illustrate how Bavinck understood Scripture in light of the historical turn. Chapter 4 moves from revelation to church confession. Bavinck believed it was impossible to develop a dogmatic system solely from Scripture.47 To some extent the application of this belief in Bavinck’s project betrays the influence that the turn to history had on Bavinck. For there to be a dogmatic system, development is necessary, the church’s participation in organizing the parts of Scripture and its extended reflection on the data allows for a dogmatic system to form. The chapter considers Bavinck’s own understanding of the role of creeds and confessions in his Trinitarian theology. Specifically, it looks at how Bavinck understood the authoritative role of creeds and confessions in his theological project. While never attaining confessional status in the Dutch Reformed church, Bavinck’s work on the Synopsis purioris theologiae—​a seventeenth-​century work of four theology faculty members at the University of Leiden explicating the theology expounded in the Canons of Dort—​serves as an illustrative example of Bavinck’s thoughts surrounding church historical texts. The chapter demonstrates that in many ways Bavinck’s engagement with historical sources is not wholly unique. Accordingly, the chapter engages with Bavinck’s interaction with historical texts (namely, the Synopsis) and definitions when developing his Trinitarian theology. Chapter 5 closes out the analysis of Bavinck’s theological method in light of the historical turn, by considering his last principium, Christian consciousness. For Bavinck, Christian consciousness was an acknowledgement of the subjective nature of theological reflection. Theology is done by people who live, move, and breathe in a particular time and place with all of the cultural,

46 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 235.

47 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 98; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 63.

14  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck philosophical, and theological questions and concerns associated with that temporality. Theology is paradoxical. It looks to eternity while being inherently temporal. As Bavinck understood it, this was a necessary part of theological reflection. Bavinck argued that a dogmatic system is an organism.48 If a dogmatic system is organic, that system must constantly be growing and developing toward a definite teleological end.49 For there to be a ‘Christian dogmatic’ the entire church, inclusive of all ethnicity, generation, nationality, etc., must speak to it.50 Thus, this chapter shows that as Bavinck understood it, theological reasoning necessarily continues to develop and grow. Bavinck believed that arrogance was shown in maintaining that the church arrived at all truth at some point in the past.51 Thus, this chapter considers how Bavinck connected both a faithfulness to confessional and creedal standards to the concept of theological development. In applying the idea of Christian consciousness to his Trinitarian theology I will demonstrate how Bavinck borrowed from and utilized nineteenth-​century concepts surrounding ‘personality’ to help develop his Trinitarian theology. What will be shown is that while Chapters 3 and 4 consider Bavinck’s retrieval of both Scripture and tradition in Trinitarian theology, Chapter 5 notes how retrieval is not repristination but that it ‘opens up new vistas for today’.52 In a sense the thrust of Bavinck’s project throughout his entire career was one of trying to mediate between the reformed and orthodox wing of his theological tradition and the Zeitgeist in which he found himself. This book is an attempt to explore the extent to which he was successful with regard to one particular area of that Zeitgeist, namely, the historical turn. Just as Bavinck was finishing his time in Kampen and moving to the Free University of Amsterdam he delivered an address in which he stated: In that time the idea was alive in the church that we must leave the world to its own fate, and precisely because I came out of the circle which I come from, I felt compelled to seek my education at a University. For that church was in great danger of losing sight of the catholicity of the church for the

48 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 96; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 62. 49 Bavinck, Christian Worldview, 70–​72; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 65. 50 Herman Bavinck, Der wetenschap der H. Godgeleerheid: rede ter aanvaarding van het leeraarsambt aan de Theologische School te Kampen, uitgesproken den 10 Jan. 1883 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1883), 12. 51 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 99; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 65. 52 Darren Sarisky, ‘Introduction’ in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren Sarisky (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 2.

Herman Bavinck: The Development of a Theologian  15 stake of holiness of life. And then the thought arose in me, ‘Is it possible to reconcile both of these?’. . . My goal is to hold tightly to both, and not to let go of either.53

In what follows, I will explore how he tried to hang on tightly both to the historical turn of the nineteenth century and his church’s theological tradition with regard to his Trinitarian theology. Acknowledging what he believed to be true, namely that ‘a Christian Dogmatic does not yet exist’.

53 Eglinton, Bavinck, 216; cf. C. Veenhof, ‘Uit het leven van de Theologische Hogeschool 6’, De Reformatie 30 (1955), 124. Dutch: In der tijd leefde in die kerk de gedachte, we moeten de wereld maar overlaten aan haar eigen lot, en juist omdat ik gekomen ben uit den kring, waaruit ik gekomen ben, gevoelde ik mij genoopt om aan eene Universiteit mijne opleiding te zoeken. Want die kerk liep groot gevaar om terwille der heiligheid des levens de catholiciteit der kerk uit het oog te verliezen. En toen rees de gedachte bij mij, is het mogelijk, die beide te verzoenen?

1 Bavinck The Intellectual Context

In studying the history of ideas, context matters a great deal. Warning against the common tendency to ignore historical context and thus render ideas ‘timeless’ or ‘universal’, Quentin Skinner remarked: The relevance of this dilemma to the history of ideas—​and especially to the claim that the historian should concentrate simply on the text in itself—​is of course that it will never in fact be possible simply to study what any given classic writer has said (especially in an alien culture) without bringing to bear some of one’s own expectations about what he must have been saying.1

What Skinner pointed to in the study of history of ideas translates well into the study of theology and is particularly poignant in the study of the thought of historical figures in theology. Timothy Tennent has made a similar observation, arguing that there is a tendency in theology to universalize a particular cultural expression as an unchangeable truth. Tennent utilizes the categories of ‘pilgrim’ principle and ‘indigenizing’ principle from the field of World Christianity and developed by missiologist Andrew Walls where the ‘pilgrim’ principle is the universalizing principle of the Gospel, and the ‘indigenizing’ principle is the particularlizing principle which locates a theologian in her time and place.2 Tennent explains, ‘An undue emphasis on the pilgrim principle assumes that all the issues we face in our culture are the same faced by every culture’.3 At the outset of this project, I want to guard against universalizing aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology which 1 Quentin Skinner, ‘Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas’ in Meaning & Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, ed. James Tully (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 31. Emphasis original. 2 Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 3–​15. 3 Timothy Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 12.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0002

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  17 belong to his particular Zeitgeist. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is to understand where and when Bavinck was located. Placing Bavinck within his larger philosophical, cultural, and theological context, particularly as regards the nineteenth-​century ‘turn to history’ allows for engagement with his theological methodology in light of this turn to history while not universalizing those features which are particular to Bavinck’s time and place. Thus, this chapter provides one piece of Bavinck’s philosophical context coming out of the nineteenth century: that era’s turn to history.4 The nineteenth century was marked by revolution, bookended on either side by the French Revolution (1789) and the outbreak of WWI (1914). Not only was it a revolutionary period militarily, but also intellectually with the likes of Kant (1724–​1804), Hegel (1770–​1831), Schleiermacher (1768–​1834), and Nietzsche (1844–​1900) setting the trajectory of philosophical and theological reasoning. This revolution of thought occurred, as well, in the realm of history with the rise of historicism. Friedrich Meinecke stated, ‘[T]‌he advent of historicism was. . . one of the greatest intellectual revolutions which Western thought has experienced’.5 While arguments concerning historicism have moved beyond Meinecke, few scholars would dispute his estimation of the impact of the movement. Before the nineteenth-​century turn to history, historical thinking tended to be ahistorical, opting to universalize and absolutize the objects of historical inquiry such as morality, humanity, and reason. The rise of historicism was an attempt to find the historical cause behind many of these objects which had been universalized in the past.6 Thus what can be seen is that the turn to history in the nineteenth century was a watershed moment in historical studies, for it is at this point that for the first

4 Various works have recently added texture to the theological and philosophical context in which Bavinck wrote and worked. Brian Mattson offers a general contextual overview in Restored to Our Destiny: Eschatology and the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1–​18. James Eglinton asks the question ‘Where was Herman Bavinck?’ in an attempt to locate Bavinck in general theological and philosophical trajectories in Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 1–​ 26. Recently a series of doctoral theses have been completed at the University of Edinburgh providing still more background. See: Cory Brock, Orthodox Yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020); Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology (London: T&T Clark, 2020); Bruce Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics: Christology and Christocentrism in Herman Bavinck (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020). 5 Friedrich Meinecke, Die Entstehung des Historismus in Werk, eds. Hans Herzfeld, Carl Hinrich, and Walther Hofer, vol. III (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1965), 1. German: Und das Aufkommen des Historismus war, was in diesem Buche gezeigt werden soll, eine der größten geistigen Revolutionen, die das abendländische Denken erlebt hat. 6 Frederick Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 1.

18  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck time history is seen as a legitimate science [Wissenschaft] in its own right.7 This new attitude toward history in which values and beliefs were relativized, changing, and particular was epitomized in the ‘wie es eigentlich gewesen’ of Leopold von Ranke.8 The days of focusing on the universal, general, and absolute were gone and, for many, so was the embarrassment of those days.9 History was now a document-​driven discipline that focused on the individual, the particular. Yet while monumental, Frederick Beiser has noted that defining this movement known as historicism is notoriously difficult.10 Nevertheless, a definition is necessary to move forward. Ernst Troeltsch, who brought the word ‘historicism’ into popular parlance, developed a definition that rested less on how the word was used and more on what the word ought to mean. Troeltsch’s concern was that the word ‘historicism’ had been used in a plethora of ways without any uniform agreement on a descriptive definition of what it was. Thus, he worked to strip the word of what he saw as its defective meaning and understanding and asserted that at its core, historicism was ‘the sense of a fundamental historicization of all our thinking about humanity, its culture and values’.11 Troeltsch, however, remained unclear about what he meant by the ‘historicization of all our thinking’. Thus, supplying a meaning for him, I argue that for Troeltsch to historicize our thinking means to see all aspects of human life as contingent on history. In Troeltsch’s construction of historicism there is no permanence to an essence, everything in the world is the product of the process of history. Everything is in flux because there is no eternal or timeless essence on which to build stability.12 Building on Troeltsch, I contend that to historicize is to take the temporal locatedness of a subject seriously not attempting to universalize any one aspect of the subject 7 Ibid., 6. It should be noted that in the category of ‘historist’ there is a variety of thinkers, such as, Herder, Humboldt, Ranke, Dilthey, Windelband, whose goals and agendas varied greatly. The one piece that each of this people held in common was the quest to legitimate history as an independent science. 8 Leopold von Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt, 1885), vii. 9 Leonard Krieger, Ranke: The Meaning of History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 22–​29. 10 Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition, 1–​2. 11 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Der Historismus und seine Probleme’ in Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Hans Baron (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), 102. German: Es ist das Problem der Bedeutung und des Wesens des Historismus überhaupt, wobei dieses Wort von seinem schlechten Nebensinn völlig zu lösen und in dem Sinne der grundsätzlichen Historisierung alles unseres Denkens über den Menschen, seine Kultur, und seine Werte zu verstehen ist. 12 Georg G. Iggers, ‘Historicism: The History and Meaning of the Term’, Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 129–​152; F.R. Ankersmit, Historical Representation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 123–​148.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  19 but seeing all subjects as engaged in the act of continually becoming. If this is indeed how historicism should be understood, it makes sense that this vision of history would fundamentally change how one might approach biblical and theological studies. Because historicism introduced the idea that identity or essence is not fixed, but historically determined, the study of dogmatics collapsed into a historical study of religion bringing historical criticism into biblical studies and the retrieval of early modern theological texts into theological studies as the subdiscipline of historical theology.13 Dogmatics was no more a quest for universal truths about God, the world, or humanity, but the exploration of what a person or group believed at a particular time and place.14 While care needs to be taken in proclaiming that everything and everyone was changed by historicism, we can note that historicism had a wide-​ranging effect. It was not solely a German intellectual pursuit, but, pertinent for the present project, Dutch theology was altered as a result of historicism. While we can see the rise of biblical historical criticism in the Dutch Ethical school and the Dutch modernists coming out of Leiden, in Bavinck’s own Kuyperian circles, there was also a renewed interest in early modern theological texts.15 One such example can be seen in an advertisement in Kuyper’s newspaper, De Heraut, on 15 May 1881. It was a short message from the Society of Reformed Ministers where they announced the retrieval of a series of early modern Dutch Reformed texts.16 In De Heraut one finds the announcement of the appearance of Bibliotheca Theologica Reformata. Already at the Society of Reformed Ministers 13 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology (1898)’ in Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 11–​32; ‘The Dogmatics of the “Religionsgeschichtliches Schule” ’, American Journal of Theology 17:1 (1913), 2–​3; Hartmut Ruddies, ‘ “Wesensbestimmung ist Wesensgestaltung”: Der Beitrag Ernst Troeltsch zur Wesensbestimmung des Christentums’ in Das Christentum der Theologen in 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Mariano Delgado (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 23–​26; Ulrich Schmiedel, ‘Performative Practice: Ernst Troeltsch’s Concept(s) of Christianity’ in The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch, ed. Christopher Adair-​Toteff (London: Anthem Press, 2017), 83–​103. 14 Bavinck says something similar about his own Reformed Dogmatics when it was first published calling it ‘the theology needed by our age’. See: Bavinck, “Dogmatiek”, De Bazuin, 26 April 1901. Dutch: Dan is zij meteen de theologie, die onze tijd behoeft. 15 George Harinck and Lodewijk Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 464–​466; 480–​ 481. I will further discuss the Dutch ethical school and Modern theology coming out of Leiden below. 16 De Heraut was a weekly ecclesiastical newspaper in the Netherlands. It was in publication from 1850 to 1945 (known as De Heraut van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland for a period). A question outside the scope of this project, but worthy of research is the time in Dutch Reformed theological thought that the move from ‘writers’ to ‘old writers’ took place.

20  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck founded in Amsterdam in October 1881, the publication of old classics of the Reformed Church primarily in the Netherlands was approved.17

It went on to note: It is a good evidence for the growth of the historical, confessional party that a sufficient number of readers could count the works of old teachers. . . . ‘Ask your ancestors and they will bless you’, that is also a statement from Scripture. The arrogance of the children, who think that they can overlook their ancestors, resembles that of the dwarf who thinks he is taller than the giant on whose shoulders he stands.18

The works of Junius (1545–​1602) and Zanchius (1516–​1590), the Loci of Trelcatius (1542–​1602), The Marrow of Theology by Ames (1576–​1633), and the Exegesis Symboli by Maresius (1599–​1673) were a few of the projects being produced at this point.19 Each author had been a major figure in the development of early modern Reformed orthodox theology and more specifically Dutch Reformed theology.20 Thus, even though it may be an overstatement to claim historicism affected everyone and everything, Bavinck was not exaggerating when he called the nineteenth century ‘the age of historic sense’.21 It is this turn to history that this chapter will investigate.

17 De Heraut 15 May 1881. Dutch: ‘In de Heraut vindt men de aankondiging van het verschijnen eener Bibliotheca Theologica Reformata. Reeds op de in October 1880 te Amsterdam gestichte Vereeniging van Gereformeerde predikanten werd tot de uitgave van de oude classici der Gereformeerde Kerk voornamelijk in Nederland besloten’. 18 De Heraut 15 May 1881. Dutch: ‘Het is een goed teeken voor de werken der oude leeraars rekenen mocht. . . . “Vraag uwen ouden en zij zullen het u zegen”, dat is ook eene uitspraak der Schrift. De hoogmoed der nakomelingen, die meenen, dat zij de ouden over het hoofd kunnen zien, gelijkt op dien van den dwerg, die grooter meent te zijn dan de reus, op wiens schouders hij staat’. 19 De Heraut 24 April 1881. 20 The new-​found enthusiasm in producing new editions of early modern Reformed texts mirrors a similar phenomenon in German. While the retrieval of Reformation and early modern era texts in German differed from that in the Netherlands in that it was sponsored by the Prussian government and bore many political concerns, there were many analogous impulses in the Netherlands. (For more on the Prussian retrieval see: Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-​ Century Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 10.) For instance, in Prussia a driving force was the legitimising of the union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches, one can see a similar instinct in the Netherlands with a concern to lend credibility to the theological positions of churches that had broken from the national church by connecting them to the historic Dutch Reformed faith. (See: Herman Bavinck, ‘The Future of Calvinism’, trans. Geerhardus Vos, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5 (1894), 1–​2.) 21 Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition, eds. Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), 100.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  21 Paying heed to Skinner’s warning, this chapter will consider the rise of historicism and this phenomenon’s effect on Bavinck’s theological project. It will examine how the rise of history as a science played a formative role in the theological reflection of the nineteenth century. The chapter sets the philosophical context for understanding much of Bavinck’s theological project including, but not limited to, his editing of the sixth edition of the Synopsis purioris theologiae, a seventeenth century text important to the articulation of early modern Reformed orthodoxy. It is here that the groundwork is laid for the rest of this project. In this chapter I will argue that the rise of historicism and basic philosophical commitments connected to this intellectual revolution shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology; namely, his use of historical theology and his attitude toward theological development. Thus, what follows frames the argument that will be made in the rest of this project; principally, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force that both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. To accomplish this goal of laying the philosophical groundwork around historicism, the chapter will make three distinct steps. First, it will examine how historicism grew out of a desire to secure a place for history as a science [Wissenschaft] in the academy. Second, the chapter will consider how this desire to see history established as a scientific discipline affected its relationship to theology, thus changing the way in which much theological reflection proceeded in the nineteenth century. Third, and finally, I will tie all of this together in Bavinck, demonstrating how these philosophical and theological currents pressed down on him, forming not only the context of his work but also his theological methodology. These three steps will support the argument that the rise of historicism fundamentally shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology. Therefore, this chapter provides the context for the subsequent chapters which will examine Bavinck’s theological methodology.

Bavinck’s Intellectual Context: History as a Science As Bavinck understood it, the history of Western philosophy is the quest to find the transcendent. Bavinck argued that, ‘[Philosophy and religion] endeavor to penetrate beneath the appearance of things to the essence, beneath

22  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck conscious to the unconscious, beneath the outward forms to the inner mystery of infinite life, of silent power, of hidden will’.22 Bavinck’s contention was that Western philosophy has an impulse in it to develop a justification for the way things are.23 With the rise of the Enlightenment and Descarte’s cogito ergo sum, human reason took its place as the supreme authority in all matters. That authority extended to the quest to find a singular reasoned essence for all things. Rising out of the German Enlightenment, historicism adopted and extended this Enlightenment ideal to the realm of history. It embraced the unwavering authority of reason in the realm of history.24 Nevertheless, in doing so, it undermined the Enlightenment project of attempting to find a single universally reasoned justification for all things (law, morality, purpose, etc.). ‘All these considerations show that history presents a character far too involved and complicated to be reduced to one common formula or to be explained from one cause’.25 The revolutionary vision of historicism was to make a break with this dominant aspect of eighteenth-​century Enlightenment thought. In making this break, historicism exposed the Enlightenment to the criticism that it was constructed and depended too much on medieval Christian theological assumptions which it had attempted to throw off.26 The theology of history found in the church before the Enlightenment was dominated by two lines of thought, one succeeding the other. First, an Augustinian view, which saw history as pointing to and finding its culmination in the incarnation of the Logos.27 That view set up Christ as the conclusion of history. Following this, in the medieval era, the view popularized by Joachim of Fiore saw Christ as the middle point, rather than the end of history—​the start of a new era, the beginning of a new beginning.28 Augustine read history as pointed to and finding its culmination in the incarnation of the Logos in whom the eschaton had reached its fulfilment. History is thus summarized in a tale of two cities or two bodies: civitas Dei and civitas terrena; corpus Christi and corpus Diaboli.29 The history of the corpus Christi is the history of the 22 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 27. 23 Ibid., 92–​95. 24 Frederick C. Beiser, The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 1. 25 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 99. 26 Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition, 11. 27 Joseph Ratzinger, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, trans. Zachary Hayes (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1989), v. 28 Ibid., 17. 29 Ibid., 9–​10.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  23 continuous incarnation of Christ through the unio mystica.30 The alternate reading which gained prevalence in the medieval church and overtook the Augustinian view in dominance was that of Joachim of Fiore.31 ‘What can be found in Joachim is. . . non-​eschatological apocalypticism’.32 History was a providential march with different epochs coinciding with each member of the Trinity respectively.33 For Joachim, the age of the Father corresponded to the Old Testament followed by the age of the Son which lasted from the first advent of Christ to 1200CE, and the age of the Holy Spirit lasting until the second advent of Christ.34 The common assumption in both of these views was a universalizing essence of history focused on Christ. Historicism asserted that there could be no such universalizing of history, and, therefore, the Enlightenment project of searching for a transcendent cause behind all things needed to be abandoned. Historicism, by extending reason to the realm of history, challenged this universalizing tendency which was still prevalent in the Enlightenment. It was this critique that marked a major break between historicism and the Enlightenment. While it is apparent that there is a break with the Enlightenment in the historicist tradition, care must be taken not to set the two in antagonistic opposition to one another. The aim here is solely to make the observation of discontinuity.35 Historicism arose out of the Enlightenment and it bears the marks of the Enlightenment not the least of which is the quest to be validated as a science [Wissenschaft], that is as a systematic process by which one gains knowledge.36 This desire falls in line with the Enlightenment aspiration to reduce all disciplines to a science.37 Yet even in this, historicism was 30 Ibid., 75. 31 Ibid., 80–​83. 32 Jayne Svenungsson, Divining History: Prophetism, Messianism and the Development of the Spirit, trans. Stephen Donovan (Oxford: Berghahn, 2016), 37; cf. Marjorie Reeves, Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future: A Study in Medieval Millennialism, 2nd ed. (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), 59. 33 Matthias Riedl, Joachim von Fiore: Denker der vollendeten Menschheit (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2004), 259–​270; cf. Herman Bavinck, RD1, 467; GD1, 436. 34 Bernard McGinn, Apocalyptic Spirituality: Treatises and Letters of Lactantius, Adso of Montier-​ en-​Der, Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan spirituals, Savonarola (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), xvi. 35 For positions that see a strong continuity between the Enlightenment and historicism see: Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 197–​233; Hans Peter Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 2–​3; Friedrich Jaeger and Jörn Rüsen, Geschichte des Historismus (Munich: Beck, 1992), 10–​11; Herbert Schnädelbach, Geschichtsphilosophie nach Hegel (Freiburg: Abler, 1974), 27–​28. For many Friedrich Meinecke’s Die Entstehung des Historismus is the paradigmatic case of an antagonistic relationship between historicism and the Enlightenment. 36 Johannes Hoffmeister, ‘Wissenschaft’ in Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (Hamburg: Meiner, 1955), 673–​674. 37 The desire to see everything as a science could be read anachronistically at this point. Science here should not be read in a positivist sense. While there may have been a tendency in that direction,

24  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck breaking with the Enlightenment. The conception of history as a science was transforming to the idea of how Wissenschaft had been historically defined. Under Aristotle, a science needed ‘demonstrable knowledge’ (meaning ‘an inference from necessary premises’) and the logical conclusion of syllogisms.38 Even though there was a generally negative reaction against and disregard for scholasticism in the Enlightenment, Aristotle’s idea of science continued and indeed grew stronger among Enlightenment rationalists. While one can look at a number of Enlightenment thinkers from Descartes to Hobbes to Leibniz, focus must be placed on Christian Wolff (1679–​1754). The reason to focus on Wolff follows from the rise and spread of Wolffianism in German Protestant thought, which functions as the milieu in which the first seeds of historicism are planted. Therefore, Wolff will provide a lens through which we can better see how there is both a definitive break produced by historicism and also continuity with the Enlightenment. Wolff represented a generation that lived on Cartesian assumptions. Bavinck described Wolff ’s system as ‘The world is a connection of finite things, a whole, a complex thing’.39 Born in 1679 into humble beginnings, by the end of his life Wolff had become a Baron of the Empire, Freiherr von Wolff, a member of the British Royal Society and Parisian Academy of Sciences, and chancellor of the University of Halle.40 He was trained as a mathematician and taught mathematics in Halle. Bavinck was aware of this, and viewed Wolff as a thoroughly committed rationalist who believed that reason would be the way in which humanity would realise its potential.41 One of the goals of his philosophical project, betraying his training as a mathematician, was to develop a language that was universal and composed of symbols whose end was to replace normal discourse.42 It was these rationalist philosophical assumptions which caused his career in Halle to be marked by controversy. what is clear from the historicist tradition is that positivism was not a necessary component of Wissenschaft. The historicist tradition had a strong tradition of perspectivalism with thinkers such as J.M. Chladenius arguing for historical investigation that can be both valid and done from a perspective. 38 Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), Book 1, ch. 3, 73a. 39 Bavinck, ‘Manuscript “Geschiedenis der nieuwe philosophie” ’. Delen I en ‘II. Van Kant tot dezen tijd’ Box 346, Folder 199 (Archive of Herman Bavinck, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands), §8. [Hereafter: no. 199, Archive of Herman Bavinck] Dutch: Wereld is een samenhang van eindige dingen, één geheel, één saamgesteld ding. 40 Werner Schneider (ed.), Christian Wolff 1679–​1754. Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung (Hamburg: Meiner, 1983); Charles A. Corr, ‘Christian Wolff and Leibniz’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 36 (1975): 241–​262. 41 Bavinck, RD1, 162–​163; GD1, 137. 42 Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism, 32–​33.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  25 Part of the reason for the controversy was fellow faculty member, August Hermann Franke. Wolff ’s extreme rationalism was the equal and opposite pole to the German pietism represented by Franke.43 Wolff ’s rationalist commitment played itself out not only in metaphysics, but also in an optimism concerning future progress. John Holloran states: ‘He imagined the optimism and moral certainty he derived from his method would have an equally profound effect on students—​if only they could be led to understand it’.44 It was his commitment to rationalism which led him to also have intellectualist tendencies in his metaphysics.45 Bavinck also observed this tendency in Wolff and commented on it in an undated manuscript on the ‘new philosophy’, stating of Wolff, ‘The human has two capabilities of the soul, knowing and willing. Wolff divides philosophy in two: theoretical philosophy, which he calls metaphysics, and practical philosophy. Logic precedes both of them’.46 This strong propensity to rationalism was not unique to Wolff and it affected the way history was conceptualized. The Enlightenment attempt to remove the religious significance of history had thrown historical studies into crisis.47 The old reading of history from a universal or providential perspective was no longer in vogue and, thus, historical studies had descended into little more than exemplar form.48 Many of the new studies in history were political histories with nothing more than a model to follow or avoid.49 Thus, for many historians their jobs had been reduced to moving as quickly as possible from the historical to the present day. Descartes’ assessment of the situation reflects the general attitude of the time: ‘If one is too curious about the

43 John Robert Holloran, ‘Professors of Enlightenment at the University of Halle’ (PhD dissertation, The University of Virginia, 2000), 30–​89. Herman Bavinck makes this same observation. See: RD1, 164; GD1, 139. 44 Holloran, ‘Professors of Enlightenment at the University of Halle’, 204. 45 Intellectualistic here is placed in contrast to a voluntaristic commitment. Voluntarism holds that God’s will determines what is reasonable. Therefore, discerning the will of God is paramount for a philosophical system. Intellectualism, on the other hand, holds that God’s acts are reasonable. Therefore, to determine God’s will, one need only consider what is reasonable. 46 Bavinck, no. 199, Archive of Herman Bavinck, §8. Dutch: ‘De mensch heeft 2 ziels vermogens, kennen en willen. Wolff verdeelt door om de philos. in 2: theoretische philos. die hij metaphysica noemt en practische philos. Aan beide gaat vooraf de logica’. 47 Anthony Grafton, What was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 189–​254. 48 Reill notes that this is seen particularly in the way that the biblical book of Daniel is used as a lens through which to read God’s providence. See: Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism, 9. 49 Adalbert Klempt, Die Säkularisierung der universalhistorischen Auffassung (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1960), 127–​128; Reill, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism, 9–​11.

26  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck things that happened in past ages, one usually remains very ignorant about what is currently taking place’.50 Thus, one can note that despite the importance of history in the works of thinkers such as Hobbes, Leibniz, and Wolff, history was nonetheless a second-​tier science when considered alongside an unquestionably scientific discipline like mathematics. History, by comparison, was a ‘lesser science’. On a surface reading of this situation it would be easy to see historicism as an antagonistic movement coming out of the Enlightenment. Yet, what we find upon a closer examination is that the relationship is more complicated with the Enlightenment and thinkers like Wolff casting a long shadow over historicism.51 According to Wolff, history was beset by a unique problem: it dealt with particulars, whereas a true ‘higher science’ dealt with the very universals that allowed for the articulation of laws that guaranteed certitude. An historical method that dealt with particulars could offer probability, but was not well placed to offer certainty.52 This lack of certainty, caused by a focus on particulars, led Wolff to call history a ‘lesser science’, stating that history ‘consisted in the bare knowledge of facts’.53 50 René Descartes, Discourse on Method and Related Writings, trans. Desmond M. Clarke (London: Penguin Books, 1999), 8. 51 Klaus P. Fischer, ‘John Locke in the German Enlightenment: An Interpretation’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 36:4 (1975): 431–​446; Charles A. Corr, ‘Cartesian Themes in Wolff ’s German Metaphysics’ in Christian Wolff: 1679–​1754, ed. Werner Schneiders (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1983), 113–​120. 52 Christian Wolff, ‘Deutsche Logik’ §2, in Gesammelte Werke, ed. Hans Werner Arndt (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), I/​1, p. 115. 53 Christian Wolff, Preliminary Discourse on Philosophy in General, trans. Richard J. Blackwell (Indianapolis: Bobbs-​Merrill, 1963), 7. One can see the parallel between Wolff and Lessing’s ‘garstiger Graben’ in this formulation. Before moving on, it is important to note that Wolff ’s philosophy proved to be of great interest to the Dutch. Between 1738 and 1745, all of Wolff ’s German textbooks on mathematics and philosophy were translated into Dutch. (See: Michiel R. Wielema, ‘Leibniz and Wolff in the Netherlands. The Eighteenth-​Century Dutch Tranlsations of Their Writings’, Studia Leibnitiana 25:1 (1993), 57.) This is significant when one considers that prior to the 1760 the stream of translations moved from the Netherlands to the Germany and was primarily focused on theological texts. (See: Joris van Eijnatten, ‘History, Reform, and Aufklärung: German Theological Writing and Dutch Literary Publicity in the Eighteenth Century’, Journal for the History of Modern Theology/​Zeitschrift für Neuere Theologiegeschichte 7:2 (2000), 177.) While this seems to be the general trend, there is no comprehensive research on German texts translated into Dutch before 1760. However, post 1760, the stream of intellectual resources reversed and the Netherlands became a large market for the translation of Germany philosophical, religious, and literary thought. Nevertheless, due to the Dutch religious context at the time (one dominated by Reformed theology but with a proto-​understanding of religious toleration) it was commonplace in reviews in the Netherlands for an editor to both note the excellencies of a particular German text and that it would have been better left untranslated. (See: Maandelyksche uittreksels of boekzaal der geleerde waereld 150 (Amsterdam: Dirk onder de Linden en Zoon, 1790), VI–​XIII.) The most popular philosophical texts to have been translated in the Netherlands during the second half of the eighteenth century were Wolff and Wolffian philosophers. (See: Eijnatten, ‘History, Reform, and Aufklärung’, 203. Eijnatten mentions Mosheim, Michaelis, Schubert, Lavater, Heß, Cramer and Sturm as just a few of the most popular German authors in the

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  27 Nevertheless, even while Enlightenment thinkers like Wolff critiqued history and its place as a science, there were currents under the surface that were slowly moving the sands and working to establish history’s place among the other Wissenschaften. The first such current was J.M. Chladenius (1710–​ 1759). Chladenius’ publication of Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft in 1752 marked the momentous shift that was occurring as early as the eighteenth century. This work has been widely recognized as the first systematic exploration of history in German.54 One scholar called him ‘the founder of the new historical studies’.55 Although he taught at both Leipzig and Erlangen, his name fell into near obscurity after his death. He would not be recognized as a formative thinker in the historicist tradition until 1889 when Ernst Bernheim (1850–​1942) stated of him: ‘To my knowledge, J.M. Chlandenius is the first to attempt to determine the relation of the historical method to the general theory of knowledge and logic in his Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft and after him no one for a long time.’56 More recently, Beiser has asserted that, ‘With Chladenius, a new historiographic tradition begins, one that stresses the legitimate role of the historian’s values and historical standpoint in the construction of history’.57 Chaldenius’ work marked a decisive turning point for the establishment of history as a science, helping to shape the conceptions surrounding it and historical methodology.58 Netherlands in the late eighteenth century.) While it would be an overstatement to say that Wolffian rationalism controlled the Dutch intellectual and ecclesiastical landscape in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it was definitely some of the most popular literature translated and a force in the background pushing philosophical and theological thought forward. 54 J.M. Chladenius, Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, worinnen der Grund zu einer neuen Einsicht in allen Arten der Gelahrtheit gelegt wird (Leipzig: Friedrich Lanckischens Erben, 1752). 55 Joachim Wach, Das Verstehen: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorie im 19. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1933), 21–​22. German: gründer der neueren Historik. 56 Ernest Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 6th ed. (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1914), 183. German: Meines Wissens ist der erste, der das Verhältnis der historischen Methode zur allgemeinen Erkenntnistheories und zur Logik eingehender zu bestimmen versucht hat, J.M. Chladenius in seinem Buch Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft und nach ihm lange keiner. Cf. Hans Müller, Johann Martin Chladenius (1710–​59) (Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1917); Meta Scheele, Wissen und Glaube in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Studien zum historischen Pyrrhonismus in Frankreich und Deutschland (Heidelberg: Winter, 1930); Wach, Das Verstehen (1926–​33). 57 Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition, 29. 58 See: Reinhart Koselleck, ‘Standortbindung und Zeitlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur historiographischen Erschließung der geschichtlichen Welt’ in Objektivität und Parteilichkeit in der Geschichtswissenschaft, eds. Reinhart Koselleck, Wolfgang Mommsen, and Jörn Rüsen (Munich: Deutscher-​Taschenbuch Verlag, 1977), 17–​46. In this article Koselleck argues that in addition to epistemology of history which Chladenius helped to establish, he also acknowledged, for the first time, the historian’s role in the construction of history. That is, that the historian brings a certain set of values and a distinct perspective when evaluating and constructing a history. This acknowledgement functions as a sea change for historical studies which classically had conceived of the task as one of objectivity.

28  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck The critique of Enlightenment thinkers against history as a science was that it did not allow for certitude and, therefore, could not provide any universals. Chladenius’ approach to history and historical methodology took these accusations seriously. Due to its focus on particulars, history was susceptible to the claim of relativism which ultimately led to a form of historical scepticism. While in his Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft Chladenius countered the arguments against historical scepticism, it was in his Einleitung zur richtigen Auslegung vernünftiger Reden und Schriften, a text on hermeneutics, in which his solution was formulated most clearly.59 In both of these works, Chladenius argued for a form of ‘perspectivalism’, believing that history could be done from a particular perspective while still being a science. This position held that something could be valid only from the ‘view point’ (Sehe-​Punckt) of the historian.60 This knowledge may be ‘relative’ with regard to this perspective but it could still be valid provided it was not made into a universal or absolute truth claim.61 The overarching concern that can be seen in Chladenius’ works is a question of how we can possess historical knowledge. It was an issue of epistemology. While difficulties surrounding a philosophy of history would permeate the nineteenth century, the problems posed by epistemology were present from the very early stages of the historicist project.62 This focus on epistemology demonstrates the importance of Chladenius’ hermeneutically focused Einleitung. It illustrated that while the historicist movement was often engaged in historical research, it nonetheless bore a markedly

This section functions as a longue durée reading of the circumstances that led to Bavinck’s own understanding and situating of himself within history. For more on longue durée history see: Ignacio Olabarri ‘ “New” New History: a Longue Durée Structure’, History and Theory, 34 (1995), 1–​29; Barbara Weinstein, ‘History Without a Cause? Grand Narratives, World History, and the Postcolonial Dilemma’, International Review of Social History, 50 (2005), 71–​93; David Armitage ‘What’s the Big Idea? Intellectual History and the Longue Durée’, History of European Ideas, 38:4, 493–​507; David Armitage and Jo Guldi, ‘The Return of the Longue Durée: An Anglo-​American Perspective’, Annales (English ed.), 70:2, 219–​247. 59 J.M. Chladenius, Einleitung zur richtigen Auslegung vernünfftiger Reden und Schriften (Leipzig: Friedrich Lanckischens Erben, 1742). 60 Ibid., §310. 61 Ibid., §421. Herman Bavinck would make this same observation: ‘In history we are not disinterested observers but live the lives of other men, are attracted or repelled by them, feel sympathy or antipathy toward them’. Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 94. 62 Later thinkers in the historicist tradition would react negatively to the ‘philosophy of history’ or metaphysical approach to historicism. One example would be Wilhelm Dilthey who thought it to be a danger to the autonomy of the human sciences. See: Wilhelm Dilthey, ‘Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften’ in Gesamelte Schriften, vol. 1, eds. Karlfried Gründer and Frithjof Rodi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 92.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  29 philosophical character. The attempt to establish history as a science relied on philosophical reasoning and, as stated earlier, was an attempt to apply Enlightenment rationalism even to the realm of history. In Einleitung, we can observe this phenomenon with Wolffian rationalism functioning as the philosophical undergirding of the entire text. It is here that Chladenius argued for hermeneutics to be established as a sui generis discipline, possessing its own rules for explaining and systematizing itself.63 In establishing these rules, hermeneutics could both systematize and justify itself as a science.64 Beiser notes the irony in Chladenius’ project here: ‘though he aspires to make hermeneutics independent from logic, Chladenius still clings to the model of logic in his attempt to justify its scientific status’.65 Without making the mistake of collapsing the historicist movement into a hermeneutic movement, a parallel can be noted between the hermeneutic and epistemological concerns of Chladenius’ Einleitung, and his more famous Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft.66 Both works seek to establish a new science: Einleitung, hermeneutics, and Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, history. In the introduction to Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, Chladenius observed that the prevailing logic of his day was too enamoured with the universal and abstract.67 In this, one can hear an implicit critique of the Enlightenment. Herein lies the historicist’s criticism of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers had never given up the universalizing of history which they had received from medieval Christian theology. They may have removed the religious dimensions, but they had not removed the necessity for a universalizing tendency. While history only dealt with the particulars it could be a science so long as it did not require those particulars to become universal laws. This required the historicists, starting with Chladenius, to work to establish rules by which to study history. However, establishing these rules for historical investigation was not Chladenius’ only concern. Two other priorities lie behind his project in Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft. First, he saw a need to construct historical 63 Chladenius, Einleitung, a3. Interestingly this assertion could be read as an indirect rebuttal of Wolff ’s claim that hermeneutics is the application of logic. See: Christian Wolff, ‘Vernünftige Gedanke von den Kräften des menschlichen Verstandes’ ch. 11–​12 in Gesammelte Werke I/​1, ed. Hans Werner Arndt (Hildesheim: Olms, 1965). 64 This emphasis on rules is a hallmark of Wolff ’s and indeed much of Enlightenment rationalism. 65 Beiser, The German Historicist Tradition, 33. 66 Hans-​Georg Gadamer makes the mistake of collapsing the two in his Wahrheit und Methode. See: Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1972). 67 Chladenius, Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, ix–​xiii.

30  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck narratives.68 Chladenius believed that the ability to teach history required the ability to tell the story of history. Therefore, a major motivation of his project was pedagogical. Part of historical studies is knowing how to construct the narrative. Second, Chladenius had a religious motivation. He was a confessional Lutheran and understood his faith to have a guiding role in his historical study. He viewed his work as a historian as a divine calling.69 Chladenius considered the rise of ‘naturalists’ (i.e., those who attack the revealed religion) as a threat to orthodox faith. Scripture is an account of action in the past, and if one could have no certainty about what happened in the past, there could be no epistemic certitude on which to base one’s faith.70 On this point years later Bavinck would argue, ‘Christianity is itself history; it makes history, is one of the principal factors of history, and is itself precisely what lifts history high above nature and natural processes’.71 While the first consideration—​that of giving historical investigation the in-​house rules necessary to make it a legitimate science—​gave Chladenius a prominent place in the development of historicism, it is this second consideration that ties him to his time and the past. Chladenius wanted history to be understood as an independent science (ein Stück der Vernunfftlehre), yet he still saw it as the handmaiden to theology. While history could have its own independent rules, Chladenius believed it did not have its own independent ends. He confessed that the telos of all his work was the explication and defence of revealed truths.72 However, he did not think that the historical truths of Scripture transcend rational analysis. If they did, one would not possess the ability to write history at all. Chladenius’ vision of historical investigation straddled two lines. It was at once both a science and the handmaiden to theology, both independent and closely tied to theology. It had its own rules but not its own ends. Whether or not Chladenius was successful in developing a historical method that avoided scepticism is an open question. However, the

68 Ibid., xix. 69 Ibid., xi. 70 Ibid., xxiv. Bavinck made a similar comment, stating: ‘Nature remains the same, and its phenomena can be studied independently and anew by every natural scientist; but the practitioners of the science of history, because they are not present at the events themselves, depend for their knowledge on testimonies. Such historians would act very foolishly if they reasoned thus: all the events that have occurred are constituents of reality and still, to the degree that they were important, affect the present. If necessary, I can dispense with the testimonies, for from the data in the present I can reason back to this or that event in the past’. Bavinck, RD3, 38; GD3, 12. 71 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 115. 72 Chladenius, Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, xxvii.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  31 importance of his quest and his work in seeking to develop a historical method that was free of scepticism allowed history to be established as a science alongside the other sciences. Chladenius had attempted to provide rules that could allow for systematic historical investigation even if in the end no definitive conclusions could be reached in that investigation. In developing these rules he had provided the process for gaining knowledge. History could be Wissenschaft. At the same time, these conversations surrounding history as Wissenschaft were occurring, questions around theology as Wissenschaft were being asked. Theology too was locked in a struggle over its scientific status. In the Netherlands there was serious debate surrounding the status of theology as wetenschappelijk, and Bavinck was actively engaged in that conversation.73 While history was being developed as a science in its own right, theology too was pondering the same question and its place among the sciences.

Bavinck’s Intellectual Context: Historical Consciousness and Scientific Theology While historical studies attempted to establish itself as a science, theologians were doing the same in theology. This development inevitably produced a cross-​pollination in ideas. Nevertheless, as we have seen above, even Bavinck thought of this time as primarily marked by the study of history, calling the nineteenth century ‘the age of historic sense’.74 History’s quest to be a science, culminating ultimately in its recognition as a science, proved to be influential on theological studies in the nineteenth century. While it would be an overstatement to say that the rise of historicism and the ‘historical turn’ in nineteenth century German theology is the key for understanding all nineteenth century German theology, it is one of the important factors for grasping the theological development in that era.75 Bringing together these two streams (theology and history) will give a clearer vision of Bavinck’s intellectual context which will allow for the subsequent section to turn to the different ways in which Bavinck was influenced by his intellectual context. All three 73 For more on the development of theology as a science in Bavinck’s thought see: Ximian Xu, Theology as the Science of God: Herman Bavinck’s Wetenschappelijke Theology for the Modern World (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022). 74 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 100. 75 Johannes Zachhuber, Theology as Science in Nineteenth-​Century Germany: From F.C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 4–​5.

32  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck sections of this chapter will come together to make my argument that the rise of historicism and basic philosophical commitments connected to this intellectual revolution shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology. As the nineteenth century began, a driving concern in theological inquiry was how theology, as an emerging science, interacted with history, which had also laid claim to the title of science. Similar to many disciplines, a divide had developed between the object of study and the past.76 The place of history in theological inquiry continued to be questioned throughout the century while at the same time there was a renewed interest in the retrieval of early modern texts in Protestant circles.77 This rise in historical consciousness caused nineteenth-​century theological thought in Germany to have a unique character.78 As nineteenth-​century theologians encountered these historical texts they found that they were in a world very similar to their own and, yet, dissimilar in many ways. For many in nineteenth-​century German Protestant theological faculties, the goal was neither an unthinking acceptance of theological positions of their forebears nor the outright rejection of orthodoxy. A great number viewed themselves as faithful sons of the Reformation. This phenomenon was not unique to Germany; in the Netherlands many both in the neo-​Calvinist and the Ethical schools considered themselves, in a nuanced sense, faithfully carrying on the older tradition.79 This was placed in contradistinction to the Modern school at Leiden which saw their work as a decided break from the historic Reformed tradition.80 This meant that for thinkers like Schleiermacher, who proposed that there was 76 Joseph Margolis, Historied Thought, Constructed World: A Conceptual Primer for the Turn of the Millennium (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 1–​9; Pierre Manent, The City of Man, trans. Marc A. Lepain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 11–​49; and Leo Stauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 9–​34. 77 Heinrich Friedrich Ferdinand Schmid, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​ lutherischen Kirche: dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt (Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer, 1863); Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​reformirten Kirche: dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt (Elberfeld: R.L. Friedrichs, 1861); Heinrich Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, eds. and trans. Charles Hays and Henry Jacobs (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1899); Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set out and Illustrated from the Sources, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G.T. Thomson (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1950). 78 Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, 134ff. 79 The theologian considered to be the ‘fathers’ of the ‘Dutch Ethical school’ were Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye (1818–​1874) and J.H. Gunning Jr. (1829–​1905). See: J.H. Gunning and Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye, Het Ethische Beginsel der Theologie (Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1877). 80 See the discussion between Bavinck and Gunning Jr. in De Vrije Kerk. J.H. Gunning Jr., ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’, De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 212–​220; Herman Bavinck, ‘Antwoord aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Gunning Jr.’, De Vrije Kerk 10:5 (1884), 221; J.H. Gunning Jr., ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’, De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 277–​286; Herman Bavinck, ‘Antwoord aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Gunning Jr.’, De Vrije Kerk 10:6 (1884), 287–​292; J.H. Gunning Jr., ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’, De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 314–​319.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  33 an ‘eternal covenant between the living Christian faith, and completely free independent, scientific inquiry’,81 and W.M.L. de Wette (1780–​1849), who argued that historical criticism has always been a part of genuine faith for Protestantism,82 there was a critical acceptance of dogma handed-​down while at the same time a stringent adherence to a conception of sola Scriptura that required independent inquiry into the Bible.83 Yet the burning question many asked themselves was: what role do these newly retrieved texts play in constructive theological inquiry? While we could point to various thinkers, both philosophers and theologians, who asked this question, perhaps none is more significant for setting the trajectory of nineteenth-​century theology than the so-​called Father of Modern Theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher.84 For the purpose of narrowing the focus of this section, we will centre our study on Schleiermacher’s response to the rise of historicism and the turn to history. Looking to the broader German theological context will aid in understanding Bavinck’s theological context. Narrowing the focus to Schleiermacher is appropriate for two reasons. First, Bavinck considered Schleiermacher one of the most important theologians to have lived, stating: With these three ideas—​the immediate consciousness of the self as the source of religion, the community as the necessary form of its existence, and the person of Christ as the center of Christianity—​Schleiermacher has exerted incalculable influence. All subsequent theology is dependent on him. Though no one took over his dogmatics, he has made his influence felt on all theological orientations—​liberal, mediating, and confessional—​and in all churches—​Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed.85 81 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, trans. James Duke and Francis Fiorenza (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 64. 82 W.M.L. de Wette, Über Religion und Theologie (Berlin, 1815), 108. 83 Thomas Albert Howard, Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W.M.L de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-​Century Historical Consciousness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 17–​18. 84 Dawn DeVries, ‘Schleiermacher’ in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 311. For more on Schleiermacher see: Karl Barth, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Brian Cozan and John Bowden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 411–​459; Brian Gerrish, Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978) and A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984); H.R. Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology: Schleiermacher to Barth (London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1952); The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Mariña (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 85 Bavinck, RD1, 166; GD1, 140. It is clear from Bavinck’s own thought and citations that he had read Troeltsch which makes the assertion that no one took over Schleiermacher’s dogmatic system

34  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Second, as will be seen in the next section, Bavinck was heavily indebted to German Romanticism (which was the philosophical milieu that produced Schleiermacher) for his own theological and philosophical resources.86 Beiser notes that whereas the eighteenth century was called the ‘age of reason’, the nineteenth century could be called the ‘age of history’.87 By the end of the nineteenth century ‘history had become a science in its own right’.88 This change had implications for theological reflection. In the field of theology, it would be simplistic when considering this to reduce the reading of this historical turn as the triumph of biblical criticism and the rejection of classical orthodoxy. Johannes Zachhuber argues that: [T]‌he historical turn was more than simply the discovery of history as a strange and fascinating space inviting exploration. It was equally conditional on the postulation (or invention) of ‘history’ itself—​a temporal continuum extending in principle from the dawn of humanity to the present.89

The application of this historical thinking within theology could be considered obvious. Not only was history as a science on the rise, but Christianity is a religion whose theological self-​understanding is based on its historical situatedness. The nineteenth-​century turn to history would necessarily have a major impact on the theological projects of that century. Theologians could no longer think of themselves as near contemporaries with the theologians of the past. Their job was to translate the thoughts of the past into the categories and concepts for the modern age. Where the eighteenth century had produced a chasm between the past and the present, nineteenth century theologians attempted to look back to the past and reappropriate it for the contemporary context. Zachhuber sets out four ways in which historicization impacted theological reflection. First, the historical turn placed the key texts on which Christianity a curiosity. Ernst Troeltsch considered the work he was doing as fully adopting and developing Schleiermacher’s system. 86 For more on the influence of German Romanticism on Bavinck see: Brock, Orthodox Yet Modern, 131–​161; Sutanto, God and Knowing, 133–​137; Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 13–​26. 87 Frederick Beiser, After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840–​1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014), 133. 88 Ibid., 134. 89 Johannes Zachhuber, ‘The Historical Turn’ in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought, eds. Joel Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 54.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  35 was founded—​at least historically speaking—​on shaky ground. Scholars encountered increasing difficulties in the reconstruction of Christian history especially surrounding textual composition. Second, there could be no certainty with regard to historical investigation. The very best one could hope for were probable conclusions. Third, the location of authority shifted. Theologians were only authoritative in so far as they were historians and/​ or philologists. This phenomenon was seen not only in Germany, but in the Netherlands where it was most fully embodied by the Leiden school. Fourth, the place of history and the historian was inverted. Whereas in the past history functioned as the teacher, the historical turn made history itself the witness that was required to answer the question posed of it by the historian.90 Yet, historicisation did not halt rich theological reflection. As the most influential German theologian of his century, Schleiermacher’s work reflected both deep theological thinking and rich engagement with the historical turn. His most famous works, Über die Religion (On Religion) and the Glaubenslehre (Christian Faith) display this character. However, these texts were meant to be read alongside his Kurze Darstellung (Brief Outline).91 Brief Outline arose from Schleiermacher’s desire to set the theological course of the modern German university. Not only did it do this, but importantly for the present argument, Brief Outline also functioned to solidify theology as Wissenschaft and embraced a thoroughgoing modernism.92 In the Speeches, he argued that religion is the immediate intuition of the universe.93 This understanding of religion took a decidedly historical flavour when Schleiermacher asserted that in history, religion ‘at last finds everything in itself that otherwise was gathered from most distant regions’.94 Religion can do this because in history the person gains the sense of the universal unity of humanity. In making that assertion, Schleiermacher was able to make a bold claim concerning the place of history in religious thought: ‘History, in the most proper sense, is the highest object of religion’.95 For Schleiermacher, then, rather than being the end of religion, history played a significant role in his theological project.

90 Ibid., 55–​57. 91 Terrence Tice, ‘Preface’ in Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, 3rd ed., trans. Terrence Tice (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), ix. 92 Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, xix; cf. Purvis, Theology and University, 139–​141. 93 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, ed. and trans. Richard Crouter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 37–​38. 94 Ibid., 41. 95 Ibid., 42.

36  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Schleiermacher used this conception of the relationship between history and religion to formulate his defence of ‘positive religions’ against ‘natural religion’. The term ‘natural religion’ was prevalent in the eighteenth century. This ‘natural religion’ was a religion that could be comprehended regardless of ‘time, place, or historical tradition’.96 ‘Positive religions’, on the other hand, are those which find their bearings in historical traditions. Schleiermacher defended ‘positive religion’ which he regarded as the religions of history, and he treated the ‘natural religion’ of the eighteenth century with antipathy.97 He contends: So-​called natural religion is usually so refined and has such philosophical and moral manners that it allows little of the unique character of religion to shine through; it knows how to live so politely, to restrain and accommodate itself so well, that it is tolerated.98

The turn to history, for Schleiermacher, was not a negative for religion. In this turn, Schleiermacher, envisioned the ability to reassert the primacy of positive religions yet once more. [E]‌very positive religion has exceedingly strong features and a very marked physiognomy, so that it unfailingly reminds one of what it really is with every movement it makes and with every glance one casts upon it.99

History provides the material used in positive religion for contemplation and discernment. For Schleiermacher, the Reformation claimed that there is an eternal covenantal relationship between the Christian faith and independent scientific research.100 Therefore, Schleiermacher could say that history and religion moved in the same trajectory.101 They are both heading toward the explanation of humanity and its relationship to the world. It is because Schleiermacher connected religion and history so closely that he was able then to turn toward ‘experiential religion’ which proved to be 96 Garrett Green, ‘Modernity’ in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology, ed. Gareth Jones (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 167. 97 Schleiermacher, On Religion, 98. 98 Ibid., 98. 99 Ibid., 98. 100 Howard, Religion and the Rise of Historicism, 18. 101 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, eds. Catherine Kelsey and Terrence Tice, trans. Terrence Tice, Catherine Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), §7.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  37 an important development for him. This ‘experiential religion’ is summed up in Schleiermacher’s famous definition of religion as an immediate (pre-​ reflective) intuition. It is ‘that we are conscious of ourselves as absolutely dependent’.102 Bavinck noted that this was a unique development in the history of Christianity: A change in this came through Schleiermacher. In accordance with his thought that religion is seated not in the mind and the will but in the emotions and in a feeling of complete dependence, he taught that Christianity was not knowledge or action but that its distinguishing mark was to be found in a singular relationship with Christ as Redeemer.103

While this intuition is available to all of humanity, in contrast to ‘natural religion’, it is located in the affections and not the intellect or will.104 It also cannot be equated with a particular ‘positive religion’. ‘Experiential religion’ is the root of all historical religions. Here Schleiermacher betrayed some of his historicist influence. ‘Natural religion’ is abstract and deals with universals. Because revelation is historical, natural religion does not have revelation. Revelation is something only accessible through historical documents, be it Scripture or church tradition.105 Schleiermacher thus connected revelation and ‘positive religion’, in that ‘positive religion’ stands ‘for the total domain of religious communities that have a continuing existence in history’.106 This positive religion, however, is not a particular religion but is only found in other religions. To find positive

102 Ibid., §4. 103 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Essence of Christianity’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 33–​34; ‘Het Wezen des Christendoms’ in Almanak van het studentencorps a/​d Vrije Universiteit, eds. J.F. van Beeck Calkoen, J.H. Broeks Roelofs, H.C. Rutgers, et al. (Amsterdam: Herdes, 1906), 251–​252. 104 It is helpful here to understand the neo-​Platonic renaissance that was taking place in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-​century Germany. Plato had been almost completely forgotten in eighteenth-​century German thought. Aristotelian scholasticism was the substance of intellectual scene at the time. However, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Plato was being revitalized through the growing influence of Frühromantik and philosophers such as Schlegel, Schleiermacher, Schelling, and Novalis. Schleiermacher was primarily responsible for this revival. Schleiermacher endeavoured on a program of translating Plato. His translations are still used in Germany to this day. The growth of Platonism explains some of the language surrounding intuition and emotions in Frühromatik literature. See: Frederick Beiser, The Romantic Imperative (London: Harvard University Press, 2003), 56–​72. 105 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §10, postscript. 106 Ibid., §10, postscript, 78.

38  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck religion one needs to turn to the historical religions.107 Through exploring these historical religions one is able to see the basic intuition of a religion can be nothing other than some intuition of the infinite in the finite, some universal element of religion that may also occur in all other religions—​and, should they be complete, must be present—​but not placed in the center of them.108

With this, Schleiermacher coupled his formative concept of ‘experiential religion’ to ‘positive religion’ and rooted this combination in history; rejecting the universal of ‘natural religion’ while embracing the particular of ‘positive religion’.109 Schleiermacher’s Speeches were his first attempt to place a flag in the ground asserting a close connection between dogmatics and history. In the Speeches Schleiermacher contended that history is not a threat to religion but is rather an integral part of religion. However, it is with his Brief Outline that Schleiermacher definitively placed history in the centre of the dogmatic enterprise.110 That work lays out the whole of Schleiermacher’s ‘theological effort in a cohesive manner’.111 That particular work is strongly marked by historical criticism and an emphasis on doctrinal development, and demonstrates his desire to engage critically with history while also insisting that theology is a growing and developing discipline. When teaching the principles found in the text, one of Schleiermacher’s students and his eventual successor at the University of Berlin, August Twesten (1789–​1876), stated: Schleiermacher places dogmatics under the historical sciences and comprehends it under. . . the knowledge of the present doctrinal condition of Christianity. At first this seems strange, but it is correct, because suppose someone wanted to stick solely with the Bible and construct a system from

107 Ibid., 111. 108 Ibid., 112. 109 Interestingly, while Schleiermacher is known for ‘experiential religion’, he rarely used the word ‘experience’ in his work. 110 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studium zum Behuf Einleitender Vorlesungen, ed. Heinrich Scholz (Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1811). 111 Tice, ‘Preface’, ix.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  39 it; but wouldn’t this system also be a product of his current education, and thus of the time in which he lived?112

History played a central role in Schleiermacher’s notion of Christian dogmatics. To navigate this post-​revolutionary, post-​enlightenment academic environment, Brief Outline functioned as map forward in theological studies. Schleiermacher’s Brief Outline conceives of theology as organized in three parts: philosophical, historical, and practical theology. In philosophical theology the theologian takes on a philosophy of religions approach, which is both empirical and historical, in order to understand how a specific expression of Christianity may be connected to an ‘ideal’ Christianity.113 Historical theology includes exegesis, church history, and dogmatics. It is the recognition that the church is situated in a particular time and yet is connected to a community that precedes it, therefore, ‘its present condition can be adequately grasped only when it is viewed as a product of the past’.114 Practical theology, then, brings together the disparate branches of theology and builds on them ‘both in a comprehensive as well as in a concentrated way’.115 It ensures that theology is connected to the religious needs of the community.116 Practical theology is the ‘prescription for various practical procedures’ in the life of the church.117 With these three overlapping and interpenetrating divisions, Schleiermacher believed he had represented the whole of Christian theology. Many interesting things could be said about all three divisions of theology, however, what is pertinent here is the place and conception of historical theology. Schleiermacher’s aim is to give theology a legitimate place in the academy as a scientific discipline. In locating dogmatics under historical theology, he situated it within the realm of scientific historical research. In the truly empiricist sense of the word, theology can be conceived of as a scientific discipline with a systematic process for investigating its object. Thus, for Schleiermacher dogmatics in a proper sense was not the study of eternal truths, but the study of what the church believes at a particular time in a particular place and how this connects to the ‘idea’ of Christianity.118 This 112 August Twesten, D. August Twesten nach Tagebüchern und Briefen, ed. C. F. Georg Heinrici (Berlin: Hertz, 1889), 118. Cited in Purvis, Theology and University, 157–​158. 113 Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, §24. 114 Ibid., §26. 115 Ibid., §24. 116 Ibid., §31. 117 Ibid., §260. 118 Ibid., §27.

40  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck definition makes dogmatics a historical study. Through the harnessing of history, Schleiermacher was able to carve out a legitimate place for theology as a science alongside historical studies. This move would wed theology to history, setting the trajectory of theology into the future and open wide the discipline of historical theology. In the succeeding generations, Brief Outline was the road map for the theological faculty in Berlin. His text was formative for the study of theology in Berlin which took on a distinctly historicist character.119 Albrecht Ritschl would call Schleiermacher the theological ‘lawgiver’ (Gesetzgeber), with Brief Outline as his legal code.120 One of Schleiermacher’s students, Alexander Schweizer (1808–​1888), provides a helpful example of the influence of Schleiermacher’s emphasis on history in dogmatics. While Schweizer’s conception of history was not unique, his position in historical literature as ‘Schleiermacher’s most faithful pupil’ makes him an interesting case study.121 In considering Schweizer’s works Die Glaubenslehre der evangelische reformirten Kirche and Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformierten Kirche, the influence of Schleiermacher’s theory of history on subsequent German theology is immediately apparent.122 In both of his massive tomes, Schweizer provided a thorough survey of Reformed dogmatics. He argued for a correspondence between the concept of divine predestination and Schleiermacher’s ‘feeling of absolute dependence’. On this basis he then argued that divine predestination is the central dogma (Centraldogma) of Protestantism.123 Schweizer’s aim was to connect Schleiermacher to the larger Reformed tradition and demonstrate that Schleiermacher falls into a long line of historical figures.124 To accomplish this goal, Schweizer looked back to the Reformers and early modern texts, locating Schleiermacher among that group.

119 Purvis, Theology and the University, 159–​160. 120 Albrecht Ritschl, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 3rd ed. (Bonn: Marcus, 1888–​1889), i. 486. 121 Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century, 571. 122 Alexander Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehere der evangelische reformirten Kirche (Zurich: Orell, Füessli und Comp., 1844); Alexander Schweizer, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformierten Kirche (Zurich: Orell, Füessli und Comp., 1854). 123 Willem J. van Asselt and Pieter L. Rouwendal, ‘The State of Scholarship: From Discontinuity to Continuity’ in Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, ed. Willem J. van Asselt (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Press, 2011), 10. 124 Schweizer, Die Glaubenslehere der evangelische reformirten Kirche, xxi–​xxiii.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  41 Schleiermacher, in the spirit of the Reformed school, first took up and promoted the Reformed dogmatics in a way that allowed it to belong to the union church without blurring the particularities of it. Schleiermacher gave the great suggestion to modern dogmatics which evidently comes from a Reformed tendency, this Schleiermacher understood as the most consistently Protestant doctrine and to which further development best fits. In his dogmatics, the Reformed consciousness revives and forms its doctrine according to a theologically advanced age.125

For Schweizer, then, the nineteenth century was a century of renewal and revival. Schweizer developed this historical background of his work for the purpose of showing how Schleiermacher, and by implication himself, was not outside the Reformed tradition, but rather was building on it. After Calvin, Schleiermacher was the next great thinker in the line of Reformed theologians. Schleiermacher’s message was both in continuity with Zwingli, Calvin, and the Reformed orthodox schoolmen and also an expansion of it, an ‘advance’. For Schweizer, Schleiermacher represented the virtue of both looking to the past while moving forward. Bavinck made a similar point while critiquing the direction of scientific theology. ‘It strikes me that also in the present time in that area [scientific theology] a particular standstill is perceived, and that it cannot move forward, while the path is being closed off, neither can it move backward, where this is much more difficult’.126 Schweizer’s goal was not a repristination of the theology of the past or even of Schleiermacher. Brian Gerrish notes, ‘Historical inquiry was intended. . . to discern the line of true progress, so that it could be protracted further’.127 Schweizer’s historical work was not a simple reading of history. It was looking back to understand the present better so that the work could be propagated into the future. It was discerning ‘the line of true progress’

125 Ibid., 91–​92. German: Erst Schleiermacher, im Geist der reformirten Schule arbeitend, hat die reformirte Dogmatik wieder aufgenommen und gefördert, wie sie ohne ihre Eigenthümlichkeit zu verwischen, einer uniirten Kirche aungehören kann. Die grossartige Anregung, welche Schleiermacher der neuern Dogmatik gegeben, ist offenbar aus der reformirten Richtung her, die Schleiermacher wieder zu würdigen verstand als den consquentest-​protestantischen Lehrbegriff, an den sich also die weitere Entwicklung am besten anschliesse. In seiner Dogmatik lebt das reformirte Bewusstsein wieder auf und gestaltet sich den Lehrbegriff gemäss einer theologisch weiter gebildeten Zeit. 126 Herman Bavinck to Snouck Hurgonje, Kampen, 11 February 1884, in Een Leidse vriendschap: De Briefwisseling tussen Herman Bavinck en Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, 1875–​1921, eds. J. de Bruijn and G. Harinck (Baarn: TenHave, 1999), 117. 127 Gerrish, Tradition and the Modern World, 127.

42  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck which he considered to be Schleiermacher. This reading is not dissimilar to Bavinck’s own reading of Schleiermacher. Great emphasis has been placed on this Christian consciousness, more now than formerly, ever since Schleiermacher, who declared this to be the only source. To a certain extent, this was correct. Thereby the progressive character of the church, of its confession, and thus of dogmatics as well, was being maintained, and the error was prevented of people thinking that at a particular moment in the past, with this or that Synod, the Holy Spirit had caused the full light to shine in the church upon all the truths of salvation.128

It is this ability to put everything into its place that gives Schweizer the label of ‘mediating theologian’. His system was neither interested in promoting the conservative theology that repristinates the past nor was his project that of dissolving the past. This attitude gave Schweizer the label of ‘mediating theologian’ (Vermittlungstheologe). [H]‌e is concerned to demonstrate the agreement between the orthodox past, taken as a preliminary historical stage, and the freethinking present, as the next stage in the total theological process. Repristination along the lines of Hase and Frank, and dissolution, as we find in Strauss, are both equally impossible . . . .129

As Schleiermacher’s most faithful student, Schweizer functions as a paradigmatic, but not a unique example of the influence of the historical turn in nineteenth century German theology. The same point can be made looking at Heppe, Tholuck, Bauer, or Troeltsch. After Hegel and Schleiermacher, the use of history in theology changed significantly. There was a proliferation of historical theological texts, a renewal of early modern theology, and a striving either to repristinate the past, dissolve the old orthodoxies, or drive a middle road as a ‘mediating theologian’. Schleiermacher set the course for nineteenth century German theology. His theological project displays the marked influence of historicism. As 128 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 99–​100; ‘Het voor en tegen van een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroeger Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 65–​66. 129 Barth, Protestant Theology, 570.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  43 theology attempted to establish itself as a science, Schleiermacher proposed the innovative course of subsuming dogmatics under historical theology. Thus, dogmatics was no longer about exploring timeless universals but historical particulars, what the church believed in a specific time and place. With this ambitious proposal, Schleiermacher both established theology as a science and demonstrated the powerful role history had come to play in theological reasoning. The question to which this chapter now turns is how these developments affected the theological scene in the Netherlands, and more specifically, Herman Bavinck. Thus, the chapter shifts its focus to the Netherlands. The way in which history was asserting itself as a science in its own right for the first time in Germany has already been shown. This influence and the beginning of dominance of history changed the shape and colour of theological inquiry in Germany and exerted influence outside the borders of Germany. Historical texts became important for the process of doing theology in Germany. I will tie the development in Germany to Bavinck’s context and will argue that the rise of historicism and basic philosophical commitments connected to this intellectual revolution also shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology; namely, his use of historical theology and his attitude toward theological development.

Bavinck’s Intellectual Context: The Netherlands, Bavinck, and History When Schleiermacher’s works were made available in the Netherlands in the 1830s, one of the leading Dutch theological journals of the day, Godgeleerde Bijdragen, wrote, ‘We judge it below the office of a protestant teacher, to translate and publish such writings without pointing out some clarifying notes’.130 The intellectual trends in the Netherlands in the nineteenth century tended to be dominated by their larger neighbours.131 The nineteenth century saw the import of German philosophical and theological ideas into the Netherlands. 130 Cited in K.H. Roessingh, ‘De modern theologie in Nederland: Hare voorbereiding en eerste periode’. (dissertation, Groningen, 1914), 24. Original Dutch: Wij schatten het beneden het ambt van een protestantsch leeraar, om zulke geschriften te vertalen en zonder tergtwijzende aanteekeningen in het licht te geven. 131 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 6.

44  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck While some in the Netherlands were apprehensive regarding the theology of Schleiermacher, others warmly welcomed it. The earliest adopters of Schleiermacher and his theological project were found in Groningen. Early in the nineteenth century, revival movements had occurred in the Netherlands centred in Groningen. This grew into a distinct school of theological reflection. The Groningen theologians spoke about repentance and the work of the Spirit and urged personal faith. . . . Not by speaking to the intellect but to the heart, they attracted the laity with their focus on warm, heartfelt sermons and their pedagogical sensibility. The educated classes were attracted by their intellectual foundation of the emotional life as the core of Christianity.132

It was this emphasis on the ‘emotional life’ that made Schleiermacher’s theology so attractive to the Groningen theologians. However, this emphasis on the emotional life was not the only influence that Schleiermacher exerted on the Groningen School. The ‘historical turn’ also pushed Dutch theology in a new direction. The Groningen School attempted to develop a purely Dutch theology. They believed they had progressed beyond the Calvinism of the past and needed to purge their theology of non-​Dutch elements. In their constructive project, therefore, they looked to Geert Groote (1340–​1384), Wessel Gansfort (1419–​1489), and Erasmus (1466–​1536), all Dutch theologians.133 Their goal was not to give a pristine version of some past Dutch theology, but to build a truly Dutch theology for their day. The irony of this was that it was the influence of Schleiermacher, a German, that pushed them in this direction. Nevertheless, because of the weight placed on a strictly Dutch theology, the Groningen school considered the Dutch theologian, Phillip Willem van Heusde (1778–​1839), their spiritual father while making widespread use of Schleiermacher. Van Heusde introduced German Romantic idealism into Dutch theology.134 Four students taught by van Heusde (Louis Gerlach Pareau (1800–​ 1866), Johan Frederik van Oordt (1794–​ 1852), Willem Muurling (1805–​1882), and Petrus Hofstede de Groot (1802–​1886)) would become professors in the Netherlands. While they would differ in some areas

132

Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 464. Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 464. 134 Roessingh, ‘De modern theologie in Nederland’, 35–​36. 133

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  45 from their teacher, they brought Schleiermacher and German idealism into Dutch theological consciousness.135 These theologians highly valued German Romantic idealism and, specifically Schleiermacher’s emphasis on the role of emotion or intuition. They also took their cues from the historicist movement.136 Thus, Schleiermacher’s stress on the place of history and historical theology became a major concern for them. As has already been shown, for Schleiermacher, dogmatics is subsumed under historical theology because all dogmatics can be is an account of what the church believed at a particular time and in a particular place. Given its new role, it is little surprise that the discipline of historical theology quickly began to yield numerous new republications of older texts.137 German historical theology soon saw a number of these reissued texts; a trend soon followed in the Netherlands. While the Groningen school was attempting to construct a ‘true Dutch’ theology through the jettisoning of all non-​Dutch theology, other projects of retrieval of Reformed Calvinistic theology were also occurring elsewhere in the Netherlands.138 Across the nineteenth century in the Netherlands, alongside the retrieval program in Groningen, two other important retrieval projects centred on J.H. Scholten and Christiaan Sepp (1820–​1890).139 Scholten was a student in Utrecht where his uncle, van Heusde, was a professor. His doctoral work demonstrated a desire to be a ‘moderately orthodox’, neither embracing the radical revisionist project that would mark his career in Leiden or Groningen nor the pietistic theology of the Seceders. Nevertheless, an opposition to the supernatural and classical formulations of theology was already evident in his thesis.140 In Scholten’s early years, German idealism thoroughly influenced his thought. Taking up a teaching post at the University of Leiden, Scholten’s work found its way into the pulpit in the Netherlands through his students. Reflecting on the impact of Scholten’s theological reconstruction for its time, Dutch theologian Hendrickus Berkhof wrote: ‘At last an up-​to-​date 135 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 7. 136 J.J. van Oosterzee, Christelijke Dogmatiek: Een Handboek voor Academisch Onderwijs en Eigen Oefening, 3 vols. (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1870–​1872); Daniël Chatepie de la Saussaye, Verzameld werk, 3 vols. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1997–​2003). 137 See: Lowell H. Zuck, ‘Heinrich Heppe: A Melanthonian Liberal in the Nineteenth-​Century German Reformed Church’, Church History 51:4 (1982), 419–​433. 138 Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 477–​479. 139 Both Sepp and Scholten are also important people in the conversation regarding Bavinck, as they both influence his thought in various ways. Bavinck picks up on much of Sepp’s reading of church history, and Scholten was a professor in Leiden during Bavinck’s years as a student. 140 S. van der Linde, ‘Joannes Henricus Scholten’ in Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, vol. 1, ed. D. Nauta (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1978), 320.

46  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck interpretation of the gospel, one for which many younger theologians and preachers had been eagerly waiting, had arrived’.141 However, as his system developed, Scholten shifted his methodology from idealism to empiricism. While in his book De Leer der Hervormde Kerk (1852) he took his starting point from the concept of God and worked to anthropology, in his book De vrije wil (1859), Scholten demonstrated this shift toward empiricism. He worked from anthropology to the doctrine of God.142 Even though Scholten argued for a continuity with the Reformed tradition, his main concern was to show how theology can be done in line with a principle of absolute material determinism. Scholten believed he was moving the tradition forward even if the ultimate goal was the dissolution and secularization of theology. Scholten understood De vrije wil to be in the vein of a historical theology.143 Scholten may not have seen a need for history as formative for his theology; he did, however, see a need to be conversant with history for situating himself and his project historically. At the same time Scholten was developing this highly philosophical theology, Christiaan Sepp was working in the area of historical theology. Sepp was an Anabaptist who ministered in Zaanstreek and Leiden. Scholten was formative for his theological thought while he worked in Leiden. Even though Sepp never fully embraced Modern theology, the idealist conception of God did dominate his theological thinking.144 His main contribution to the development of Dutch theology was his two-​volume church history of the Netherlands.145 Bavinck considered Sepp’s treatment of Dutch church history to be substantial, even stating in the introduction to his own reissued edition of the early modern Leiden Synopsis, ‘The renowned Sepp has very diligently investigated its importance and the degree of its authority in various Academies’.146 It is clear that Bavinck not only read, but also appreciated the work that Sepp had done in writing this church history. 141 Berkhof, Two Hundred Years of Theology, 100. 142 van der Linde, ‘Joannes Henricus Scholten’, 321. 143 Ibid., 321. 144 A helpful clarification should be made at this point. The term ‘modern theology’ will be used in two distinct ways in this book. First, there is a generic understanding of ‘modern theology’ as network post-​Enlightenment Protestant theologies. Second, ‘Modern theology’ (with the capitalized Modern) was a distinct theology coming out of the second half of Dutch theology which was dominate at the University of Leiden in Dutch referred to as de moderne theologie. For an overview of Dutch Modern theology, see: Eldred Vanderlaan, Protestant Modernism in Holland (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924). 145 A. de Groot, ‘Christiaan Sepp’ in Biografich Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, vol. 4, ed. D. Nauta (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1998), 398. 146 Bavinck, ‘Introduction’, vi. Original Latin: Et quanti momenti fuerit quantaque ejus auctoritas in variis Academiis, diligentissime persecutus est Clarissimus Sepp.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  47 While the Netherlands entered the nineteenth century following the German philosophical and theological scene, the work of theologians like those found in Groningen and Leiden quickly caught up with what was being produced in Germany. By the 1850s the Netherlands was thoroughly ensconced in the broader philosophical and theological thought of nineteenth century Europe. The effect of the education coming out of Leiden found its way into the pulpits with Schleiermacher becoming regular reading for the people studying for ministry there.147 This modernist education in Leiden would lead the graduates to question the distinctive role of the church in society; eventually producing graduates who either renounced Christianity upon graduation or quickly left Christian ministry for a job outside the church. One such man, Allard Pierson (1831–​1896), studied under Scholten and later became a newspaper editor and art critic. He ‘came to the insight that the “religion of humanity”, whose mother the church had been, must be realized not in church but in society. . . humanity surpassed Christianity’.148 Pierson’s comment not only betrays the theology being taught in the leading university of the Netherlands, Leiden, but also a view of the constant movement forward of history. Christianity, for Modern theology in Leiden, was a stop on the way to some greater ideal. Now was the time to jettison old belief. The church and theology had served their purpose. It was in this theological and philosophical milieu that Herman Bavinck was educated. As a student at Leiden he interacted with various thinkers from Schleiermacher to Hegel to Schelling. Formally, Scholten served as supervisor for his doctoral thesis, although Abraham Kuenen served as his de facto supervisor, and was more influential on his doctoral project.149 Writing to a friend, Bavinck indicated the significance of Kuenen for his own development as a thinker. Kuenen was an Old Testament scholar who, alongside Scholten, help to construct Dutch Modern theology. He specialized in historical criticism of the Old Testament.150 The influence of Leiden is evident in how Bavinck appropriates the nineteenth-​century turn to history. Bavinck did not reject this historical turn, yet he did not uncritically embrace everything which came with it. Instead, he brought together the historical turn and the revival of neo-​Platonic thought which emerged from the German Romantics.151 This allowed Bavinck to

147 148

Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 464–​466. Ibid., 476.

150

Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 474.

149 Eglinton, Bavinck, 96–​99.

151 Eglinton, Bavinck, 84; Beiser, The Romantic Imperative, 56–​72.

48  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck retrieve an Augustinian theology of history which situated Christ as the end of history, as well as to construct a developmental view of theology. While the quest for the particular in the historicist movement had led to a near rejection of the universal, Bavinck still argued for an organic understanding of history. Every man lives in his own time, comes into being and passes away, appears and disappears; he seems only a part of the whole, a moment of the process. But every man also bears the ages in his heart; in his spirit-​life he stands above and outside of history. He lives in the past and the past lives in him for, as Nietzsche says, man cannot forget. He also lives in the future and the future lives in him, for he bears hope imperishably in his bosom. Thus he can discover something of the connection between the past, the present, and the future; thus he is at the same time maker and knower of history. He belongs himself to history, yet he stands above it; he is a child of time and yet has part of eternity; he becomes and he is at the same time; he passes away and yet he abides.152

Bavinck believed that the organic nature of man in history allowed him to be positioned both in relation to the particular and the universal. This permitted Bavinck then to retrieve universal histories and particularly an Augustinian reading of universal histories. It would be easy to miss the Augustinian influence on Bavinck’s theology of history when one considers the surface level use of language. For Bavinck, Christ is ‘the middle of history’.153 Bavinck never quotes directly from Joachim of Fiore, but what is noticeable is the way in which Bavinck’s conception of history is paradigmatically related to Joachim’s.154 A cursory consideration of his use of the metaphors he employed in his ecclesiology section of his magnum opus, Reformed Dogmatics shows that the church as the Body of Christ is just one metaphor among many.155 What is even more interesting is that Bavinck followed a scheme that is similar to that of Joachim of Fiore in his breaking of the dispensations of history. ‘When the economy of the Son, of objective revelation, is completed, that of the Spirit begins’.156 All of this language might make one assume that 152 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 114. 153 Bavinck, RD1, 383; GD1, 355. 154 Simon Kennedy has argued that there are Hegelian echoes in Bavinck’s historical work. See: Kennedy, “ ‘Held together by one leading thought’: Bavinck’s Philosophy of History”, paper presented at Bavinck Centenary Conference, Brisbane, Australia, December 2021. 155 Bavinck, RD4, 298; GD4, 282–​283. 156 Bavinck, RD1, 505; GD1, 471.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  49 Bavinck’s theology of history follows Joachim.157 In this, Bavinck’s reasoning embraces a type of ‘non-​eschatological apocalypticism’. Nevertheless, this particular idea requires a careful reading. Bavinck considered the role of the church as the telos or end of revelation. Objective revelation is oriented toward subjective revelation. Objective revelation is an instrument which finds its end in the subjective revelation disclosed to the individual consciousness. It is in the church that revelation reaches its perfection. The purpose of revelation is not Christ; Christ is the center and the means; the purpose is that God will again dwell in his creatures and reveal his glory in the cosmos: θεος τα παντα εν πασιν [‘that God may be all things in everyone’, 1 Cor. 15:28]. In a sense this, too, is an incarnation of God [ένανθρωπησις του θεου]. And to achieve this purpose the word of revelation passes into Scripture. Hence Scripture, too, is a means and an instrument, not a goal. It is the product of God’s incarnation in Christ and in a sense its continuation, the way by which Christ makes his home in the church, the preparation of the way to the full indwelling of God [praeparatio viae ad plenam inhabitationem Dei]. But in this indwelling, accordingly, it has its τελος, its end and goal (1 Cor. 15:28). Like the entire revelation, Scripture, too, is a passing act [actus transiens].158

It is Bavinck’s conception of revelation and the activities of the persons of the Trinity that prove particularly interesting for understanding his appropriation of an Augustinian theology of history. With Christ’s coming, objective revelation reached its pinnacle. However, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, subjective revelation begins through the internalizing of objective revelation. The Spirit, for Bavinck, not only internalizes the knowledge of God but also of Christ. It is Christ, the pinnacle of objective revelation, indwelling the church through the person of the Holy Spirit that allows Bavinck to make the connection to an Augustinian concept of continuous incarnation—​a doctrinal move that influenced his theology of history.159 While this is not explicit in the ecclesiology section of Reformed Dogmatics, when dealing with 157 It is interesting to note that Jayne Svenungsson connects German Romantic theology to Joachim of Fiore’s theology of history. See: Divining History, 64–​104. 158 Bavinck, RD1, 380–​381; cf. GD1, 352. 159 Pass makes the same connection to continuous incarnation. However, he does not see the connection to Bavinck’s theology of history. See: Pass, Heart of Dogmatics, 144–​155.

50  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck revelation, Bavinck understood the indwelling of God through the Spirit to be one of continuous incarnation.160 To see the outworking of Bavinck’s theology of history most clearly, it is necessary to follow a close reading of his Stone Lectures, delivered in 1908 at Princeton Theological Seminary.161 It is here that it can be shown how continuous incarnation and Augustine function as the foundation for Bavinck’s theology of history. These lectures provide an overarching survey of Bavinck’s philosophy of revelation. In his exploration of this topic he covered philosophy, nature, religion, Christianity, religious experience, culture, the future, and history. The question of history and its place in philosophical and theological thinking had developed over the nineteenth century and this development was still in process. Bavinck’s Stone Lectures, later published as Philosophy of Revelation, recognize this. Nevertheless, what Bavinck spent extended time exploring in Philosophy of Revelation is a further development of those thoughts on history and theological reflection.162 In the chapter on history in Philosophy of Revelation, Bavinck considered the state of historical studies in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The ‘historical turn’ of the nineteenth century, he noted, had given history the pride of place in dogmatic theology. Many of Schleiermacher’s students had picked up on this, and as a result, by the mid-​nineteenth century, history had become a dominant part of theological reasoning. As the century went on a turn from idealism to Romanticism to a materialist, naturalist, positivist understanding of history grabbed hold of the discipline.163 Bavinck argued that this materialist penchant could be best seen in works like David

160 Bavinck, RD1, 213, 505; RD3, 280; GD1, 184–​185, 470–​471; GD3, 260–​261. 161 Bavinck’s inverting of the historical turn is striking. Whereas in Germany historical theology was done historically (i.e., from the perspective of history), Bavinck reads history theologically (i.e., from the perspective of a Trinitarian concept of God). The natural question that arises from this is the extent to which Bavinck took historicism seriously. I will explore this question in more detail below. 162 See: Bavinck, ‘The Future of Calvinism’; ‘Het calvinisme in Nederland en zijne toekomst’, in Tijdschrift voor Gereformeerde Theologie 3 (1896), 129–​163; Christelijke wereldbeschouwing: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20 october 1904 (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1904); ‘Christianity and the Natural Science’, in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 81–​ 104; ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap, ed. C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921), 78–​104. 163 Suzanne Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 75. Marchand defines positivism as ‘the belief that only those facts which have been produced through the strict application of scientific methods (here, usually philological ones) constitute real knowledge, and the conviction that adding a brick to the edifice of knowledge is a sufficiently satisfying goal of scholarly endeavor’.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  51 Friedrich Strauss’ Life of Jesus Critically Examined.164 Strauss argued for mythology in the Gospel narrative. An understanding of myth had been an integral part of oriental studies in Germany in the nineteenth century. The place of myth in questions regarding nature, humanity, the meaning of symbols, and the relationship between East and West became more and more problematic as the nineteenth century continued, yet it never fully disappeared.165 Oswyn Murray notes, ‘The important point was to recognize that the study of Christianity was no different from the study of any ancient belief system: all of them began in myth’.166 As Enlightenment and Romantic thinkers conceived of and deployed myth, the mythological origins of all religion became a point of ‘embarrassment’ for many in the late nineteenth century.167 The quest for the key to all mythologies, the Bible included, was an embarrassment and, therefore, respectable scholars would be wise to avoid this. For history to be a respectable science, it needed to conform to the methods of the natural sciences. Germany had made a turn away from idealism and Romanticism to Positivism. It is possible to tell the story in such a way that portrays the death of Romantic idealism’s universalizing as having cleared the way for Positivism. Nevertheless, there were still those who felt the influence of Romantic idealism and argued for a modified neo-​Platonic universal history. Not least 164 David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, trans. Marian Evans (New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1860). The first edition in English was based on the fourth edition in German. The first German edition appeared in 1835 and the fourth edition came out in 1840. 165 Colin Kidd, The World of Mr. Casaubon: Britain’s Wars of Mythography, 1700–​ 1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 7. Oswyn Murray, ‘In Search of the Key to all Mythologies’ in Translating Antiquity: Antikebilder im eropäschen Kultuurtransfer, ed. Stefan Rebenich (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2010), 119–​132. 166 Ibid., 120. 167 I am indebted to Suzanne Marchand and her use of ‘embarrassment’ as a motif for understanding how late nineteenth-​century historiography conceived of that earlier Enlightenment and Romantic period. One vignette from Germany can display how the century had progressed in the philosophy and theology of history. In Germany, a controversy erupted over the historiography of Friedrich Creuzer (1771–​1858). (See: George Williamson, The Longing for Myth in Germany: Religion and Aesthetic Culture from Romanticism to Nietzsche (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 137–​150; Stephen Larsen, ‘Friedrich Creuzer and the Study of Antiquity’ (PhD dissertation, Princeton, 2008); Michael D. Konaris, The Greek Gods in Modern Scholarship: Interpretation and Belief in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-​Century Germany and Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 36–​45; Josine Blok ‘Quests for a Scientific Mythology: F. Creuzer and K.O. Müller on History and Myth’, History and Theory 33:4 (1994): 26–​52.) On the one hand, Creuzer argued for what amounted to be a Romantic idea of history, taking the ancient witnesses to history at their word and finding in them hints of a ‘key to religion’. On the other hand, people like Johann Voss argued vehemently against him and his proposal. Voss and other German critics opposed Creuzer’s universalizing of mythology. The clarion call in Germany was against the universalizing of history found in the works of men like Creuzer and Romantic historiography. (See: Karl Otfried Müller, Geschichte hellenischer Stämme und Städte, vol. 1: Orchomenos und die Minyer (Breslau: Josef Max, 1820), 7–​8.

52  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck among these were Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–​1911) and Rudolf Eucken (1846–​ 1926), both of whom were influences on the lives of Bavinck and Kuyper.168 Both of these men were educated under scholars who considered themselves to be Romantic idealists—​Dilthey studying with Adolf Trendelenburg (1802–​1872) and Eucken studying with both Trendelenburg and Hermann Lotze (1817–​1881). Neither Dilthey nor Eucken viewed their role as the preserving of the Romantic idealist tradition in a pristine form, but one of preservation and reform. While being inheritors of the tradition, they conceded that the tradition must adapt to be viable in the current context. Unlike their Romantic idealist predecessors who had argued that philosophy should lead all the sciences, Dilthey and Eucken understood that in the current context philosophy could no longer do this. One of those sciences that philosophy could no longer lead was history. ‘Not the assumption of a rigid a priori faculty of knowledge, but only historical development, which proceeds from the totality of our being, can answer the questions that we have to address to philosophy’.169 The influence of Dilthey’s thinking here is critical. However, it is also necessary to see how Bavinck modified Dilthey’s thought. In his 1867 inaugural lecture at the University of Basel, Dilthey argued that his project grew out of Kant’s desire to found a science of the mind which was empirically based. He saw it as time to understand the law governing the phenomena of society, intellect, and morality.170 Dilthey’s aim was to ensure that history remained an independent science, yet the danger in historical research, as he saw it, at the time was succumbing to the dominance of the natural sciences.171 Dilthey contended that the social-​historical and the natural science could be split, with the social-​historical sciences dealing with inner experiences and the 168 Rudolf Makkreel, Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); Michael Ermath, Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Meyrick Booth, Rudolf Eucken: His Philosophy and Influence (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913); W.R. Boyce Gibson, Rudolf Eucken’s Philosophy of Life (London: A & C Black, Ltd., 1915); Abel J. Jones, Rudolf Eucken: A Philosophy of Life (London: T.C. & E. C. Jack, 1913); Margaret MacSwiney, ‘Rudolf Eucken and the Spiritual Life’ (PhD dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1915). 169 Wilhelm Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und ihrer Geschichte (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot), 1883, 11. German: Nicht die Annahme eines starren a priori unseres Erkenntnisvermögens, sondern allein Entwicklungsgeschichte, welche von der Totalität unseres Wesens ausgeht, kann die Fragen beantworten, die wir alle an die Philosophie zu richten haben. 170 Wilhelm Dilthey, ‘Die dichterische und philosophische Bewegung in Deutschland 1770–​1800’ in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 5, eds. Karlfried Gründer and Frithjof Rodi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 27. 171 Dilthey, Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, 92.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  53 natural sciences dealing with outer experiences. As such the rules that govern the natural sciences could not be the same as those which govern the social-​ historical sciences.172 Dilthey was insistent that this was not an ontological but a phenomenological divide.173 From this then Dilthey would go on to argue that these social-​historical sciences find their foundation on ‘facts of consciousness’ (Tatsachen des Bewußtseins) the analysis of which makes up the centre of the ‘Geisteswissenschaften’.174 Thus, following from this, these social-​historical sciences find their foundation in psychology. Bavinck picked up on Dilthey’s critique of the positivistic nature of science and tied it to his own understanding of psychology and history. History cannot be practised in the same way that the natural sciences were practices. As Bavinck understood it, history as a science had descended into a purely empirical endeavour, or to use Dilthey’s language, it had become a study of ‘outer experiences’. The historian could not make the claim that she was solely an onlooker, but she had to make value judgements about history. We stand over against the persons and events not only as onlookers but also as judges; we cannot assume a neutral attitude with respect to them as we may do in the case of nature. But where is the standard which we have to apply to be found, and how is it to be applied? And in the closest connection with this there is a great difference about the true contents, the moving-​ forces and the aim of history. Are these to be found in the development of the understanding and in the advance of science as Buckle thought; or in the idea of liberty as Kant and Hegel imagined; in the establishment of an order of government as Breysig thinks; or in production as Marx supposes? Are they to be found in mind or in matter, in man or in culture, in the state or in society?175

Bavinck understood that these questions could not be answered if the historian resorts only to empirical investigation. History as a science needed laws that would be empirically derived. However, these empirical laws had not been found and could not be verified. An empirical positivism gave no authoritative way of ordering or interpreting history or history’s aims. For Bavinck, a philosophy of history is necessary.176

172

Ibid., 9. Ibid., 8–​15. Ibid., xviii. 175 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 103. 176 Ibid., 103. 173

174

54  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Throughout the nineteenth century various attempts had been made to answer the question of history as a science. The likes of Buckle to Lamprecht had offered solutions ranging from anthropogeography, to histories based on economics, materialism, or social-​psychology.177 This was done to give a surety to the study of history. It was believed that without this empirical surety, history could not be considered a science. The growth of historical studies and the nineteenth century’s emergent interest in Eastern and Far Eastern history and culture brought with them new challenges.178 As has been noted already, the old Romantic idealism with its universal ideological view of history was shoved aside and a positivistic reading of history took its place. ‘It was no longer permissible to construe the facts in accordance with a preconceived idea; but, inversely, from the facts the laws must be learned which controlled them in their development’.179 The principia of the modern view as Bavinck saw it was evolutionary monism.180 There was an analogue between nature and history. For Bavinck, however, evolutionary monistic ideas of history ignore some of the key differences between nature and history. Society is not a biological organism, but an organization, which no doubt is not exclusively established by the will of man, but certainly not without it. Before we can investigate the origin and development of such an organization as a family, society, or people, other factors than merely biological ones must come into consideration; just as in an organism forces are at work which are not found in a machine.181

This monism fails to provide what it proports to offer. The unity that was promised is lost in infinite diversity. Trying to understand history from a monistic vantage point has only succeeded in highlighting the rich diversity of life.182 While monism cannot provide the unity it promises, Bavinck found it helpful in that it points to the necessity of a unity to history. Nevertheless,

177 Ibid., 92. 178 See: Bradley L. Herling, The German Gita: Hermeneutics and Discipline in the German Reception of Indian Thought, 1778–​1831 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Todd Kontje, German Orientalisms (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004). 179 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 95. 180 Ibid., 95. 181 Ibid., 96. 182 Ibid., 99.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  55 this unity can only be derived from an understanding of revelation.183 That is, only when history itself is understood as revelation from God and of God, that one can see the unity of history. Even though history needs its own set of rules, those rules cannot be derived from history. Bavinck argued that they must come from an authoritative source, and that the only source that can provide a coherent view of history is God through revelation. As such, his claim was that a coherent philosophy of history can only be derived from Christian suppositions. Bavinck’s argument for this was that the only way for a historian to see unity in history was for the historian to imagine that there is a unity in human nature; that is that the historian’s own ‘spiritual life’ is the key to explaining ‘the thinking and willing, the feeling and action of historical personages’.184 For Bavinck, the ability to imagine this and find the unity is only found in connection to Christ because Christ is the centre of history.185 Following from this Christ, therefore, provides the stability that history needs so as not to collapse into itself.186 Without this imagination, Bavinck argued that monism was the only other available option. The danger with monism, he believed, is that its unity descends into either uniformity or a chaotic diversity. With the Christian imagination, unity does not descend into uniformity. ‘In unity God loves diversity’.187 In general, Bavinck thought, Christianity allows for a unity which promotes and embraces a diversity. In this particular case, he held that only Christianity allows for an understanding of history that embraces both the universal and particular. Monism, or an evolutionary understanding of history, requires a before and an after. ‘It knows no pro and contra’ because of this monism does harm to history by not taking it seriously.188 However, Christianity tells of history as a struggle between ‘darkness and light, sin and grace, heaven and hell’.189 Bavinck here is alluding to Augustine’s civitas Dei and civitas terrena. Because Christ lived, died, and has risen, he holds all of history together as one. Christ, for Bavinck, unifies and gives stability to history. Without Christ, all of history would fall into chaos. Instead of having a unity of history one ends up with ‘a history of races and nations, of nature 183 Ibid., 113. 184 Ibid., 113. 185 Ibid., 115. 186 Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview, eds. and trans. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, James Eglinton, and Cory Brock (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 100; Christelijke wereldbeschouwing, 66. 187 Herman Bavinck, ‘Aan de Lezer van DE BAZUIN’, De Bazuin, 5 January 1900; cf. RD4, 318; GD4, 303. Dutch: God heeft in de eenheid de verscheidenheid lief. 188 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 115. 189 Ibid., 115.

56  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck and culture peoples’.190 With Christ there is no beginning or end for he is the beginning and the end. Thus, Bavinck contended that history can only be understood from the standpoint of Christianity. ‘But with Christianity, God himself enters history and leads hearts to the realization of his purpose. In Christianity, God becomes the God of history [Dem Christenthum wird Gott geschichtlich]’.191 Bavinck followed Rudolf Eucken and Dilthey in their late Romantic idealism, even agreeing when Eucken said: Christ could not come again and yet again to be crucified; hence the countless historical cycles of the Ancient World disappeared, there was no longer the old eternal recurrence of things. History ceased to be a uniform rhythmic repetition and became a comprehensive whole, a single drama. Man was now called upon to accomplish a complete transformation, and this made his life incomparably more tense than it had been in the days when man was merely to unfold an already existing nature. Hence in Christianity, and nowhere else, lie the roots of a higher valuation of history and of temporal life in general.192

Bavinck argued that this is an essentially Augustinian reading of history. God had entered into the world in the fullness of his glory in the person of the Logos. In his coming, Christ was the pinnacle, the apex of revelation. In his session at the right hand of the Father, Christ sent the Spirit who indwells the church which is Christ’s body. The church now works through the power of the Spirit, being both those who are gathered in and those who do the ingathering. This is both the essence and the mission of the church. That is to say that the mission of the church is to accomplish the divine plan for creation and the end of history.193 It is only through revelation as understood in Christian theology that Bavinck believed any of this can be known. Bavinck’s view of history allowed him both to draw on the past and move forward to the future in development. The influence of the turn to history is

190 Ibid., 115. 191 Bavinck, ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’, 97. Here Bavinck quotes Dilthey’s Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften, 445. This quote is not identified or set off in quotation marks in the English version of the text. 192 Rudolf Eucken, Main Currents of Modern Thought: A Study of the Spiritual and Intellectual Movements of the Present Day, trans. Meyrick Booth (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 246. 193 Bavinck, ‘Christianity and the Natural Science’, 104; ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’, 103–​104.

Bavinck: The Intellectual Context  57 apparent here. History is neither an object lesson nor something solely to be universalized. There is not a rejection of the past but an appreciation of it. The individual is valued, yet, for Bavinck, the particular is still able to be a part of the universal. There is unity in diversity. For Bavinck, dogmatics and dogmatic reflection did point to what the church believed at a particular time and place. Nevertheless, this is not the sole nature of dogmatic reflection. It also pointed to universal truths. These universal truths must be appropriated here and now by the church.194 It is also dogmatic reflection that must be built up; it must grow.195 The historical turn and the impulse both to retrieve from the past and move forward to the future displayed a distinct tinge of historicism with a strong dose of German theology in the vein of Schleiermacher. However, Bavinck was sympathetic to these modern tendencies, yet there is a sense in which one can wonder about the extent to which the historical turn truly changed Bavinck’s view of history. His was a history that was still thoroughly theological which borrowed from the larger Augustinian tradition’s theological conception of history.

Conclusion This chapter opened with the admonition from Quentin Skinner of the need to know the context of the particular text we are examining. Skinner went on to say, ‘To discover from the history of thought that there are in fact no such timeless concepts, but only the various different concepts which have gone with various different societies, is to discover a general truth not merely about the past but about ourselves as well’.196 While Bavinck would have disagreed with Skinner’s claim regarding universals, he would certainly deem the basic sentiment to be correct: context is necessary for understanding historical concepts. Thus, this chapter has endeavoured to give context for Bavinck’s theological methodology, setting it in the era of the nineteenth century’s turn to history. In it I have argued that the rise of historicism and basic philosophical commitments connected to this intellectual revolution shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology; namely, his use of historical theology as read through the historical methodology of his Leiden professor 194 Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, eds. and trans. Cameron D. Clausing and Gregory Parker Jr. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2019), 13. 195 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 94; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 60. 196 Skinner, ‘Meaning and understanding’, 67.

58  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Abraham Kuenen and his attitude toward theological development. The nineteenth century was a time when history was carving out its place as a science in its own right. As history asserted itself, theology did the same. Clearly seen in the works of many theologians, chief among them Schleiermacher, is the extent to which the historical turn had changed how they envisioned the theological task. Schleiermacher argued that dogmatics was subsumed under history articulating what the church believed at one particular time and place. Evidence of the influence of both the turn to history and Schleiermacher can be identified in Bavinck’s project. He argued that there was a need to retrieve past works but that, much like Schleiermacher, theological reflection needs to move forward. Yet, unlike the historicists and Schleiermacher, Bavinck did not value the particular over the universal. Both were necessary. Together, they formed an organic whole. This chapter has laid the foundation on which the following chapters will build. Each following chapter will demonstrate the marked influence of the turn to history on Bavinck. He was not a pristine theologian but a product of his time. Chapter 2 grows out of Chapter 1 by giving an overview of Bavinck’s theological methodology.

2 Theological Method In 1888, Herman Bavinck was in the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (CGK)—​a denomination wrestling over whether to merge with Abraham Kuyper’s Dolerenden1—​and had recently been appointed rector of the CGK’s Theological School in Kampen. From 1887 to 1888 Bavinck served as the rector of the Theological School in Kampen, the school which functioned to train ministers for the CGK. In his lecture as outgoing rector, later published as the book The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church, he argued for the union of these two churches on the grounds that their differences were not so great as to warrant division.2 In many ways, Bavinck’s address was a paradigmatic example of someone pondering one of the principal problems that has plagued many Protestants, namely, how should this branch of Christianity relate to its pre-​Protestant roots, and understand the process of reform that has shaped it over a period of centuries?3 How to reckon with both historical location and historical development? It was this Protestant predicament that Bavinck’s 1888 lecture considered.

1 This was a denomination which was formed out of the Netherlands Reformed Church with Abraham Kuyper as the leader of the movement. The Doleantie (‘grieving’), as they came to be known, was formed in 1886 and by 1887 was composed of 151 churches. The ministers who opted into the Doleantie were predominately young with many of their ministerial candidates coming from Kuyper’s Free University of Amsterdam. For more, see: George Harinck and Lodewijk Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. H.J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 474. 2 The main reason that the churches had remained separate was due to suspicions from the Seceders surrounding Kuyper because he stayed in the NKH (Nederlandse Gereformeerde Kerken) when they thought he should have joined their church years before. There was also concern about Kuyper’s optimistic openness to modern culture. While some of the Seceders shared Kuyper’s sympathies here, Bavinck being one person, many did not. It was because of this that the Dolerenden had not joined the Seceders immediately in 1886. 3 Though Bavinck is particularly concerned with the Protestant church, he does acknowledge that Roman Catholic church has a similar problem in dealing with historical location and development. As Bavinck understood it, Rome’s problem is its rejection of the progress of the Reformation. Bavinck stated, ‘The goal had to be to bring about the church’s hegemony over everything. All authority and power was to be brought under the papacy’. See: Herman Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), 230; De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk: Rede gehouden bij de Overdracht van het Rectoraat aan de Theol. School te Kampen op 18 December 1888 (Kampen: G. Ph. Zalsman, 1888), 20–​21.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0003

60  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck In that address, Bavinck noted the precarious position in which Protestants find themselves in relation to historical theology or church tradition and constructive theological projects. He argued that the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura inserts a tension between the authority of Scripture and the authority of the church and tradition. ‘In the Protestant principle there is indeed a church-​dissolving element as well as a church-​reforming one. The one Christian church has been fragmented into innumerable sects and small churches, assemblies, and conventicles’.4 Bavinck acknowledged a difficulty within Protestant theological methodology: while highly prized as the ‘formal principle’ of Protestant theology, sola Scriptura also lends itself to the possibility of dissolving the catholicity of the church.5 For Reformed theology, the place of church tradition, creeds, and confessions requires extended reflection. In 1888, Bavinck himself had grappled with this, writing articles on the theology of Albrecht Ritschl and on ‘Modern theology’.6 Bavinck took reflection on this topic seriously. If the Reformed church is marked as ecclesia reformata semper reformanda what role does historical theology play in the continual development of the Reformed dogmatic system?7 Or put another way, do church creeds and confessions exercise any authority over the Protestant theologian engaged in constructive dogmatic reflection? The last chapter demonstrated that one particularly important development in nineteenth-​century German intellectual life, namely the turn to history, influenced Bavinck. While Bavinck accepted the importance of history, historical investigation, and historical situatedness, he followed thinkers like Dilthey and Eucken reading history metaphysically and not as a purely empirical pursuit. Following from this, Bavinck believed that there was a need to retrieve historic theological texts for contemporary theological reflection. Nevertheless, his formulation of their place in such theological

4 Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, 249; De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk, 50. 5 The distinction of Scripture as the ‘formal principle’ and justification sola fide as the ‘material principle’ in Protestant theology is first made by August Twesten in a particularly Lutheran context. See: Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​lutherischen Kirche (Hamburg: Perthes, 1826). Albert Ritschl provided the first historical analysis of this distinction. See: ‘Über die beiden Principien des Protestantismus: Antwort auf ein 25 Jahre alte Frage’, Gesammelte Aufsätze (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893), 234–​247. 6 Herman Bavinck, ‘De Theologie van Albrecht Ritschl’, Theologische Studiën 6 (1888), 369–​ 403; ‘The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl’, trans. John Bolt, The Bavinck Review 3 (2012), 123–​163; ‘ “Moderne Theologie”, Review of Wijsbegeerte van den godsdienst’, vol. 1, by L.W.E. Rauwenhoff, De Vrije Kerk 14:6 (1888), 253–​286. 7 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 82; ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’ (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1911), 36.

Theological Method  61 reflection disagreed with that of the historicists and those who followed Schleiermacher. For Schleiermacher and many coming after him, dogmatics was a historical exercise, revealing what the church believed at one particular time and place. While church history, creeds, and confessional statements may be of some assistance to the contemporary theologian, they bore no universal truth and dealt solely with the particular. Bavinck, however, argued that universals could be ascertained in the particulars of historical theology. There is unity in the diversity.8 This chapter, therefore, turns our attention to how those philosophical and theological influences functioned in Bavinck’s theological methodology. Thus, while examining Bavinck’s methodology, we are not ignoring the intellectual context in which Bavinck found himself but rather will apply it to Bavinck particularly. Before this project can explore the exact way that Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology, attention needs to be drawn to how Bavinck’s theological methodology was positioned as a methodology which both looked to the past and pressed forward for development. Looking at Bavinck’s theological methodology generally will allow us to explore how he employed it specifically in his Trinitarian theology. I will argue in this chapter that the influence of historicism on Bavinck’s methodology allowed him to see theology as a progressive science. There have been a few recent studies on Bavinck’s epistemology which have touched on methodology. However, the work that has been done primarily focuses on the general epistemological concerns undergirding Bavinck’s project. While these are important, this chapter will narrow its focus, considering the principia in connection with the organic motif so prevalent in Bavinck’s writings. While others have looked at both the principia and the organic—​either together or individually—​for different purposes, this chapter will bring them together for an examination concerning theological methodology.9

8 Bavinck is in line with Leopold von Ranke in making this argument. In a lecture in 1831, Ranke argued that whereas philosophers go from the universal to the particular, the historian goes from the particular to the universal. Thus, the philosopher’s method is synthetic moving from the infinite to the finite. The historian’s method is analytic moving from the finite to the infinite. Following from this for both Ranke and correspondingly, Bavinck, universals are not asserted until the empirical data has been examined. See: Leopold von Ranke ‘Idee der Universalhistorie’ in Aus Werk und Nachlass, vol. 4, ed. Peter Fuchs von Walther and Theodor Schieder (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1965), 72–​89. 9 James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2012); Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology (London: T&T Clark, 2020); Bruce Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics: Christology and Christocentrism in Herman Bavinck (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020).

62  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck John Webster has observed that, ‘An understanding of the nature of theology comprises, inter alia, an account of theology’s object, its cognitive principles, its ends and the virtues of the practitioners’.10 Here, Webster infers an important truth in modern theology, namely that post-​Kant there has been a break between the subject and the object of theology. A divide was placed between the observer and that the thing that was observed. Bavinck’s theological methodology finds its starting point and context in an effort to overcome this gap. It does this by identifying the object of theology and the knowing subject’s relation to that object. Thus, this chapter opens with an exploration of Bavinck’s engagement with the subject–​object break in theology arising in a post-​Kantian context. After that, an exploration of Bavinck’s appropriation of the principia in a dogmatic method can begin. While what follows will not focus on theological epistemology, the chapter must turn to it and consider how the concept of principia functioned within Bavinck’s theological epistemology for the purpose of understanding Bavinck’s theological methodology. Finally, the chapter will explore the three principia in Bavinck’s theological method: in turn, Scripture, the church, and the individual consciousness. To conclude, I will consider how Bavinck envisioned the role of the church, church history, and Christian creeds and confessions in a dogmatic system. Perhaps typically within Protestantism, Bavinck found that placing the church amongst the principia was not a problem-​free move. As such, this chapter will show explicitly the ways in which historicism influenced how Bavinck thought about theological methodology. Thus, the argument I make in this chapter builds on what was previously argued and contends that historicism allowed Bavinck to see theology as a progressive science. Subsequent chapters will be shaped by the conclusions found here. As I examine how Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology, it will be shown how his Trinitarian theology cannot be read without attention being given to the nineteenth-​century turn to history. What follows continues to construct the larger argument; principally, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force—​ which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future—​ has a demonstrable influence on Bavinck’s theological methodology. It lays out this method, so that in the following three chapters that method can

10 John Webster, ‘What Makes Theology Theological?’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 213.

Theological Method  63 be deployed to consider how Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology specifically.

Bavinck: The Subject–​Object Split Throughout Bavinck’s Prolegomena (volume one of his Reformed Dogmatics), an overarching concern was the gulf that had developed in post-​Kantian theology and philosophy between the subject and the object. This philosophical quandary dominates Bavinck’s account of general epistemology. ‘The one who does not trust knowledge until he has been able to control that which is outside himself makes an impossible and absurd demand because knowing is always—​and can never be other than—​a relation between subject and object’.11 When this relation is broken, Bavinck asserted that all claims to knowledge are suspect. For there to be true knowledge, subject and object, being and knowing, must correspond.12 This position was true for Bavinck in all epistemological inquiry, be it general epistemology or theological epistemology: correspondence between subject and object is necessary.13 Just as in the sciences the subject must correspond to the object, and in religion subjective religion [religio subjective] must answer to objective religion [religio objectivo], so external and objective revelation demands an internal revelation in the subject.14

Bavinck was careful to note that the human knower—​no matter the topic—​is always the same: ‘While epistemology is always the same, it is nevertheless adapted to the object that is being considered in every science, and so in religion as well’.15 Dogmatics is ‘the scientific system of the knowledge of God’.16

11 Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview, ed. and trans. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, James Eglinton, and Cory Brock (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 35; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20 october 1904, 3rd ed. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1929), 18–​19. 12 Bavinck, Christian Worldview, 60–​61; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 33. 13 Sutanto has raised questions surrounding Bavinck’s theological epistemology in so far as it borrows from philosophical thought in the late Romantic German Idealist tradition. While I agree with many of the conclusions reached in this work, he does not flesh out the implications for constructing a dogmatic system. See: Sutanto, God and Knowledge. 14 Bavinck, RD1, 348; GD1, 320. 15 Bavinck, RD1, 564; GD1, 532. 16 Bavinck, RD1, 38; GD1, 13.

64  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Thus, for Bavinck, the object of theology is God. Following from this, scientific theology is theocentric. Since Bavinck held that scientific theology has God as its object, it adapts its epistemology to that object. A theologian, after all, is not a philosopher. Although philosophical training is indispensable to a theologian, he or she need not first have examined all philosophical theories of cognition before embarking on his or her work as a theologian. Theology has its own epistemology and, though dependent on philosophy, it is not dependent on any particular philosophical system.17

This move by Bavinck was not without its controversy. Bavinck’s theocentric view of scientific theology was not shared across the Dutch academy. In fact, in his inaugural lecture to his post at Kampen in 1883, Bavinck reacted against the Leiden school and particularly one of the professors in Leiden, Lodewijk Rauwenhoff (d. 1889). Bavinck opened the lecture by quoting Rauwenhoff that: Theology must become secularized. . . . Her right to hold her place in our University, its prospect of higher appreciation on the part of practitioners of other sciences, her chance to arouse new love with the rising generation, it all depends on the extent to which it will meet the demands of secularization.18

Herein lies the distinction between Bavinck and Rauwenhoff. For Bavinck, dogmatics is a science with God as its object. Because dogmatics is a science, Bavinck could contend it should be in the university.19 For Rauwenhoff, 17 Bavinck, RD1, 503; GD1, 468. (NB: The English translation adds ‘he or she’ when in the original Bavinck only had ‘he’.) 18 Herman Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid: rede ter aanvaarding van het leeraarsambt aan de Theologische School te Kampen, uitgesproken den 10 January 1883 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1883), 5. Dutch: de Theologie moet worden geseculariseerd. . . . Haar recht om op den duur aan onze Universiteiten hare plaats te behouden, haar uitzicht op hooger waardeering van de zijde der beoefenaars van andere wetenschappen, haar kans om nieuwe liefde te wekken bij het opkomend geslacht, het hangt alles af van de mate waarin zij zal voldoen aan den eisch van . . . secularisatie. For Rauwenhoff to say that theology, as a science, must be secularized means it must conform to the rigourous demands of apparently neutral empirical research. It meant that the ideal was not systematization but innovation. To secularize theology was to make theology conform to the demands of culture. Bavinck’s counterpoint that argued for a theologized theology is something that prefigures John Webster’s ‘Theological Theology’. See: John Webster, ‘Theological Theology’ in Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics II (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 11–​32. 19 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology: An Introduction’, Reformed Theological Review 77:2 (2018), 75–​135.

Theological Method  65 theology must be secularized to maintain its status as a science and its place in the university. This meant that Christianity had run its course and its doctrines no longer stood. Therefore, the only good it had left to offer to larger society was in the care for the poor and to develop the secular state. However, even this for Rauwenhoff could be offered by the state, and the state could do a better job at that. Rauwenhoff argued, ‘What actually lay in the beautiful dream of the Kingdom of God on earth can be fulfilled in and through the state’.20 Nevertheless, Bavinck is clear that while the scientific nature of theology gives it a place in the university, the object of theology also demands that it be located in ecclesial life.21 ‘There can be and may never be any talk of a distinction between ecclesial and scientific or between exoteric and esoteric’.22 Theology, for Bavinck, maintained both an academic and an ecclesial calling. Thus, theology is not something that can be secularized, for ‘[t]‌o practice theology—​it is a holy work. It is a priestly service in the house of the Lord. It is itself religion, a serving of God in His temple, a devotion of heart and mind to the glory of His Name’.23 Bavinck’s argument was that a secularized theology offered little, but sanctified science opened countless fields for deeper investigation.24 Bavinck’s recognition of God as the object of scientific theology was not without its controversies. From the side of Modern theology it was seen as a regression back to old orthodoxy with an understanding of theology as sui generis. Lucas Lindeboom, Bavinck’s Kampen colleague represented one particular strand of this interaction with Modern theology which ran through Seceder tradition. According to Lindeboom, Bavinck’s vision for a scientific theology in the university was the exact thing which Bavinck and Kuyper argued against, a secularizing of theology. How is it possible that men like Dr. KUYPER and RUTGERS do not understand that Sacred Theology has, thus, left ‘its own home’? It is even worse that men of the Secession [i.e., Bavinck], from the Free Church and School, seem blind to this sin and danger. Is it partly the influence of worldly, 20 Cited in John Halsey Wood, Jr. ‘Church, Sacrament, and Society: Abraham Kuyper’s Early Baptismal Theology, 1859–​1847’, Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 279. 21 Ximian Xu, Theology as the Science of God: Herman Bavinck’s Wetenschappelijke Theology for the Modern World (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022). 22 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 130; Godsdienst en godgeleerheid: Rede gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het Hoogleeraarsambt in de Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, op Woensdag 17 December 1902 (Wageningen: Vada, 1902), 61. 23 Bavinck, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 131; Godsdienst en godgeleerheid, 62. 24 Sutanto, God and Knowledge, 58.

66  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck ungodly, gymnasia and universities on the Church and its seed? Or is it that this idea of university can be ingrafted to the Reformed root?25

For Bavinck, it is only by virtue of the recognition of theology’s object that its dual calling in the university and the church is maintained.26 It is in dealing with these questions surrounding the nature and location of theology that the problems related to the subject–​object relation were considered. This concern was not unique to Bavinck. The language and questions surrounding ‘subject’ and ‘object’ distinctions are inherently modern and fashioned in a post-​Kantian context.27 One thinker on whom both Bavinck and Kuyper leaned and employed favourably, Rudolf Eucken, made the keen observation that there is ambiguity in how these terms are used: ‘The exact significance of these terms in modern terminology, though distinct enough from that which they bore in the Middle Ages, is in itself most uncertain’.28 Contra a Cartesian rationalism, Kant’s system does not rest on the existence of a disembodied mind. A priori categories and intuitions allow an active mind to construct experiences.29 This proposal from Kant 25 Lucas Lindeboom, Godgeleerden (Heusden: A Gezelle Meerburg, 1894), 74. ‘Hoe is het mogelijk dat mannen als Dr. KUYPER en RUTGERS niet inzien, dat de S.S. Theologia Aldus “hare eigene woonstede” verlaten heeft? Nog erger is het, dat mannen uit de Afscheiding, uit de Vrije Kerk en School afkomstig, ook al blind schijnen te zijn voor deze zonde en dit gevaar. Is het mede de invloed van de wereldsche, ongoddelijke, gymnasia en universiteiten op de Gemeente en haar zaad? Of is die universiteitsidee op Geref. wortel over te planten?’ 26 Eglinton explores the rift between Bavinck and Lindeboom thoroughly in his biography. See: James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 199–​202. 27 James Brown, Subject and Object in Modern Theology (London: SCM Press, 1955), 11–​33. 28 Rudolf Eucken, Main Currents of Modern Thought: A Study of the Spiritual and Intellectual Movements of the Present Day, trans. Meyrick Booth (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 36. For a more up-​to-​date discussion about the subject–​object problem in modern philosophical/​theological thought see: Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Bavinck and Kuyper both engaged with Eucken. Kuyper utilized his thought throughout his Encyclopaedie der heilige Godgeleerdheid. Bavinck introduced his thought in various places throughout the Reformed Dogmatics and his thoughts concerning history such as: ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’, Stemmen des Tijds 2 (1913), 343–​377; ‘Christianity and Natural Science’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres, 81–​ 104. Bavinck was particularly positive about Eucken’s gracious engagement with Christianity and history. One reason for Bavinck’s favourable reception of Eucken is his academic pedigree. As was shown in the previous chapter, Eucken came out of the late German Romantic idealist circles. These philosophical circles heavily influenced much of Bavinck’s thought, especially his thinking around the topic of history and theology. See: Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, 3 vols. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1908–​1909), 1:103–​108; Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition, eds. Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), 104–​115. 29 One philosopher, Gordon Clark, used a helpful analogy of self-​conscious jars. These jars contain jam. The jars spend much time and energy attempting to figure out why the jam inside of them always takes the same cylindric form. The jars run tests on the chemical composition and the physical properties to no avail. However, one particularly astute jar posits the consideration that in fact the

Theological Method  67 was a ‘Copernican Revolution’ of sorts. Nevertheless, while it opened the door to many new possibilities, it also brought unique new challenges for theologians. Chief among these was the insistence on an objective reality that was empirically verifiable while maintaining an equal emphasis on the subjective element.30 John Macmurray observed that Kant shifted the starting point for theological thinking: [M]‌odern philosophy is characteristically egocentric. I mean no more than this: that firstly, it takes the Self as its starting-​point, and not God, or the world or the community; and that, secondly, the Self is an individual in isolation, an ego or ‘I’, never a ‘thou’.31

Bavinck was highly critical of this post-​Kantian nineteenth century turn to the subject. However, as Bruce Pass notes, his criticism was not due to subjectivity entering into theological studies, but because the ‘nineteenth century concepts of religion. . . are not subjective enough’.32 Bavinck argued that for Kant religion was morality; for Schleiermacher it was feeling; for Hegel it was knowledge.33 Bavinck maintained that broadly speaking modern theology/​ philosophy had forced a reduction of religion to either doing, feeling, or knowing.34 Bavinck’s conception of religion, however, was more than one of these areas: ‘But religion must, according to the Christian confession. . . not be something but everything in life’.35 The relation of the subject and object was a major concern for Bavinck not only in general epistemology but also for his theological epistemology. This concern carried over into his methodology. After all, methodology follows epistemology. The next section will assess Bavinck’s proposed solution to overcome this subject–​object dichotomy; namely, the dual concepts of principia and organism. Neither of these is unique to Bavinck. As will be shape of the jam has nothing to do with the jam itself but the jars. It is the jars that give the jam its shape and there is nothing inherent in the jam that causes it to be cylindric. See: Gordon Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957), 313. 30 John Macmurray, The Self as Agent (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1957), 36–​61. 31 Macmurray, The Self as Agent, 31 (emphasis original). 32 Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 67. 33 Bavinck, RD1, 254–​269; GD1, 227–​243. 34 Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 67. 35 Herman Bavinck, ‘Philosophie des geloofs’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921), 14; ‘Philosophy of Religion (Faith)’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 29.

68  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck seen, he borrows the organic motif from German Romantic idealism and the principia from Reformed orthodox theological language both of which lean heavily on Aristotle and medieval scholasticism in their constructions of these concepts.36 However, what is unique is Bavinck’s deployment of these two concepts, is that he does not utilize the organic motif without modification. Bavinck borrows a revised version of the philosophical concept of the organic from thinkers such as Schelling and Eduard von Hartmann. Likewise, he transformed and expanded the principia that he inherited from his Reformed orthodox forerunners. The next section will explore Bavinck’s use and implementation of these two concepts for bridging the subject–​ object divide.

Bavinck: The Organic, Principia, and Theological Epistemology In Bavinck’s desire to see correspondence between subject and object, he employed and modified two different concepts: an organic motif which arose from the larger nineteenth-​century philosophical milieu and theological principia as understood by early modern Reformed orthodox theologians.37 For Bavinck, these two work together to unite subject and object. It is the same divine wisdom [Goddelijke wijsheid] that created the world organically into a connected whole and planted in us the urge for a ‘unified’ [einheitliche] worldview. If this is possible, it can be explained only on the basis of the claim that the world is an organism and has first been thought of as such. Only then do philosophy and worldview have a right and ground of existence, as it is also on this high point of knowledge that subject and object harmonize, as the reason within us corresponds with the principia of all being and knowing.38

36 Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 229–​300; K. Scott Oliphint, ‘Bavinck’s Realism, the Logos Principle, and Sola Scriptura’, Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2010), 359–​390; Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck and the Problem of New Wine in Old Wineskins’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 17:4 (2015), 432–​449. 37 For more on the role of the organic motif see: Eglinton, Trinity and Organism; Cory Brock, Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020); Sutanto, Organic Knowing; Pass, ‘The Heart of Dogmatics’. 38 Bavinck, Christian Worldview, 51; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 27.

Theological Method  69 The principia are a way of conceptualizing the dogmatic system as an organic whole.39 Jan Veenhof has identified four aspects to Bavinck’s deploying of the organic motif: unity in diversity, the priority of the whole over the parts, the animating and controlling of the idea, and the teleological nature of the organism.40 While noting the accuracy of these four elements, Bruce Pass adds to the list the fifth element of congruency between both mechanical and teleological explanations. He argues that this betrays Bavinck’s indebtedness to Schelling.41 Eglinton notes the same connection between the teleological and mechanical without linking it to Schelling.42 However, Pass contends that the evidence for this comes from Bavinck’s Christelijke wereldbeschouwing where Bavinck asserted: And viewed from the highest standpoint, the whole world is an organic unity, upheld by one thought, led by one will, directed to one goal—​one ‘organon’ [όργανον] that is also a ‘machine’ [μηχανή] and a ‘machine’ [μηχανή] that is also a ‘organon’ [όργανον], a building that grows and a body that is built. It is a work of art from the Supreme Artist and from the Master Builder of the universe.43

Pass states that when these five aspects come together one can see Bavinck’s use of Schelling and the organic motif most fully. These five elements taken together share a marked correspondence with Schelling’s conception of the organic.44 Accordingly, Bavinck envisioned the ‘organic’ as more than just a convenient motif, it also found its origin in the very nature of God.

39 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 96; ‘Het voor en tegens can een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 62–​63. 40 Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en Inspiratie: De Openbarings-​en Schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die der ethische theologie (Amsterdam: Buijten and Schipperheijn, 1968), 264. 41 Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 20. 42 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 72. 43 Bavinck, Christian Worldview, 92; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 59–​60; cf. Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 20. 44 Frederick Beiser, The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), 137–​141; Lara Ostaric, ‘The Concept of Life in Early Schelling’ in Interpreting Schelling: Critical Essays, ed. Lara Ostaric (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 48–​70.

70  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Our God himself provides us with an even infinitely higher and richer and more glorious system, to behold and admire, he who is one in essence, in three persons, in whom the one identically complete essence dwells hypostatically in a threefold manner. He, the Triune One, shows us in himself the entirely perfect system: origin, type, model, and image of all other systems.45

Eglinton has argued that, ‘God as archetypal (triune) unity-​in-​diversity’ is the ‘basis for all subsequent (triniform) ectypal cosmic unity-​in-​diversity’—​ an idea that could also be applied to a dogmatic system.46 For Bavinck, creation displays the organic unity that is found archetypally in the triune God. God existing in one essence and three persons, in Bavinck’s view, was the pattern for all other relationships in which there is both a diversity and unity. This archetype-​ectype relationship allowed Bavinck to see an organic unity between the one and the many. There is unity in the diversity. Even while employing Schelling’s categories in his project, Bavinck’s implementation of the organic motif betrays that there was great diversity in the use of the concept in the nineteenth century. It is possible to observe this discontinuity when considering Johannes Scholten’s use of the organic. Harinck and Winkeler observe that for Scholten, ‘The action of God was the same as what the emerging empirical science called natural law’.47 This theological construction is best displayed in Scholten’s De leer der Hervormde Kerk.48 In it he developed what could be understood as a mechanistic, deterministic monism. Starting with nature, he worked his way back to a concept of God. God, thus, is the cause but he is the cause of a predetermined effect. For Scholten, his organicism was a mechanistic organicism and is self-​ sustaining. ‘When due to a chemical process unity is obtained, the process is finished. The organism, on the other hand, has a continuous process which is self-​renewing’.49 Unlike his Doktorvater at Leiden, Bavinck’s claim for a unity-​in-​­diversity which is patterned after God was not an attempt to read back into God

45 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 92; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 59. 46 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 54. 47 Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 474. 48 Johannes Scholten, De leer der Hervormde Kerk (Leiden: P. Engels, 1849). 49 Johannes Scholten, Geschiedenis der godsdienst en wijsbegeerte (Leiden: Akademische Boekhandel van P. Engels, 1863), 365. Dutch: Wanneer, ten gevolge van scheikundige verbinding, de eenheid verkregen is, is het proces afgeloopen. Bij het organische leven daarentegen heeft een aanhoudend, zich steeds uit zich zelf vernieuwend proces.

Theological Method  71 observations from creation. Scholten also used the concept of the organic in his work.50 Bavinck’s reaction was most sharply focused on Scholten’s mechanical view of organicism. Scholten’s reading started with creation and reasoned its way back to God. Bavinck did not see the belief in teleology as necessitating a mechanical organicism. In the conclusion of his critique of mechanistic organicism, he stated: The organic worldview is, therefore, finally teleological through and through. It is not so in the flat sense of rationalism, which considers human understanding as the measure and goal of all things. Rather, it is so in the elevated sense that Scripture makes known to us and according to which everything exists through God and for his glory. This teleology is in no way at all at odds with the causal link that we notice everywhere in nature and history. ‘Nothing comes from nothing’ [ex nihilo nihil fit] and ‘no effect without cause’ [nullus effectus sine causa] are logical rules opposed by nobody. But there are different sorts of causes. Teleology is at odds not with the causal but rather with the mechanical view, because it knows no nature but the body, no substance but the material, no power but the physical, and therefore also no cause but the mechanical.51

As Eglinton observed, ‘One may say that for Bavinck, a theology of Trinity ad intra requires a cosmology of organicism ad extra’.52 The order here is important. Contra Scholten, for Bavinck, it is not that an organic cosmology ad extra requires a Trinity ad intra, but rather that a triune God comes first. Bavinck thought that, because God in his being is triune, his creation will necessarily reflect him while remaining distinct from him. Thus, Eglinton concluded that for Bavinck ‘the Trinity is wholly unlike anything else, but everything is like the Trinity’.53 In this construction Bavinck was attempting to uphold classic distinctions between the Creator and the creature while deploying a motif which is found in modern philosophical discussions. This motif had led some, such as Scholten, to deny that classical distinction. Bavinck’s project depended on preserving it, and he perceived a way in which organicism could be modified to fit his purposes while maintaining its form.



50 Ibid., 365, 369, 374, 381.

51 Bavinck, Christian Worldview, 89; Christelijke Wereldbeschouwing, 65.

52 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 68. 53 Ibid., 89. Emphasis original.

72  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck The way forward was to locate its foundation in the Triune life of God and not in the creation. As Sutanto notes, ‘God is being and all else is becoming’.54 While the incorporation of the organic motif betrays the influence of nineteenth-​century Romantic idealism, Bavinck’s use and modification of the principia ties him to early modern Reformed orthodox theology which did not significantly deviate from medieval (Aristotelian) categories in their discussion of theology’s principia.55 Bavinck incorporated principium essendi and principium cognoscendi into this theological epistemology.56 However, he did not leave them unchanged. Most notably he modified the distinction between principium essendi and principium cognoscendi. For the principium cognoscendi, Bavinck included both an external and internal aspect.57 While a different reading of the Reformed orthodox tradition would permit reading a tripartite division in the principia, thus producing a principium essendi, principium cognoscendi externum, and a principium cognoscendi internum, Bavinck’s interpretation seems to stem more from post-​Kantian concerns than a desire for continuity with the Reformed orthodox divisions. In responding to Schleiermacher, he stated, ‘We do not confess only a ‘principium externum’ (i.e., Holy Scripture), but also a ‘principium internum’ (i.e., the Holy Spirit), who living in the congregation, makes the things of the Kingdom known to her’.58 Bavinck, thus, re-​imagined and deployed the classical concepts of principium externum and principium internum to overcome the subject–​object divide. While his philosophical context allowed him to adopt these Reformed orthodox categories in a way that was divergent from their earlier use, he developed a tripartite division which allowed him to account for a Trinitarian structure to both his theological epistemology and methodology.59 This Trinitarian structure made God the Father the principium essendi, God the Son the principium cognoscendi externum, and God the Holy Spirit the principium cognoscendi internum. 54 Sutanto, God and Knowledge, 22. 55 Dolf te Velde, The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 107. 56 Richard Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:435. 57 Van den Belt, Authority, 238. Interestingly, van den Belt argues that Muller is mistaken in assigning this distinction to Alsted and Maccovius, and also contending that Muller misidentifies the principium internum in Alsted’s work. See: van den Belt, Authority, 244–​246. Cf. Muller, Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed., 1:442 n. 147. 58 Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid, 15. Dutch: Wij belijden toch niet alleen een ‘principium externum’ n. l. de H. Schrift, maar ook een ‘principium internum’, n. l. den H. Geest, die wonend in de gemeente haar de dingen des Koninkrijks doet verstaan. 59 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 92; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 59.

Theological Method  73 Thus we have discovered three foundations [principia]: First, God as the essential foundation [principium essendi], the source, of theology; next, the external cognitive foundation [principium cognoscendi externum], viz., the self-​revelation of God, which, insofar as it is recorded in Holy Scripture, bears an instrumental and temporary character; and finally, the internal principle of knowing [principium cognoscendi internum], the illumination of human beings by God’s Spirit. These three are one in the respect that they have God as author and have as their content one identical knowledge of God. The archetypal knowledge [theologia archetypa] of God in the divine consciousness; the ectypal knowledge [theologia ectypa] of God granted in revelation and recorded in Holy Scripture; and the knowledge of God [theologia] in the subject [subjecto], insofar as it proceeds from revelation and enters into the human consciousness, are all three of them from God.60

Bavinck’s distinction between a principium essendi and principium cognoscendi corresponds with Reformed orthodoxy, and more specifically Junius’ distinction between theologia archetypa, God’s perfect self-​ knowledge, and theologia ectypa, the knowledge of God that human beings can acquire as creatures.61 Bavinck connected all these concepts through ancient philosophy to Reformed orthodoxy as conceptualized by Junius. While the organic motif allowed Bavinck to conceive of all these parts as a unified whole, the expanded structure of the principia allowed him some space to address the subject–​object dichotomy produced by his post-​Kantian context. Bavinck’s identification of the Father as the principium essendi is an innovative move, but one that is in line with Abraham Kuyper.62 The principium 60 Bavinck, RD1, 213–​214; GD1, 185. 61 Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid, 29. ‘Natuurlijk niet God, zooals Hij is in zichzelven, in de gansche diepte van zijn ondoorgrondelijk wezen, maar—​ gelijk ook de Gereformeerden terecht onderscheidden—​zooals en voorzoover Hij in natuur en genade zich heeft willen openbaren. Wat zouden wij anders dan door openbaring van Hem kunnen weten? Ectypisch is heel onze Theologie. God in Christus Jezus, is haar heerlijk object.’ While not mentioning Bavinck specifically, one can note from Dolf te Velde’s reading of Junius that Bavinck’s use of the archetypal-​ectypal distinction deviates slightly. Bavinck sees archetypal-​ ectypal relations in all of creation and describing something of God, and te Velde’s reading of Junius is that the distinction is a comment on theological knowledge and not ways in which creation reflects God. That is, God’s theology is archetypal and our theology is ectypal. All theological constructions which humans develop are ectypal theology. Bavinck’s extends this relationship to see creation itself as ectypal. Thus, while Bavinck used the archetypal-​ectypal distinction, he employed it in a way that is distinct from Junius, whom he identified as the source of this distinction in his work. See: te Velde, The Doctrine of God, 92–​93. 62 Abraham Kuyper, De hedendaagsche schriftcritiek in haar bedenkelijke strekking voor de gemeente des levenden Gods (Amsterdam: Kruyt, 1881), 10; cf. Bavinck De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid, 12. Muller identifies thinkers inside early modern Protestant scholasticism, such as Johannes Hoornbeek and Edward Leigh, who took similar positions to that of Bavinck. However, with both

74  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck essendi for all knowledge is God. ‘All knowledge depends on the knowledge that belongs to God, the principium essendi of all science’.63 The more interesting development for Bavinck’s theological project is his division of principium cognoscendi into two parts: externum and internum.64 Since God’s knowledge of himself is perfect (theologia archetypa), God must reveal himself for there to be any knowledge of God (theologia ectypa) to anything that is not God. The creature’s knowledge of God is by its nature limited on the grounds of finitum non capax infiniti. This creaturely knowledge of God rests on God’s revelation in Scripture (principium cognoscendi externum).65 However, for there to be knowledge of God, the Holy Spirit must illumine the human consciousness. ‘These three principia, distinct yet essentially one, are rooted in the trinitarian being of God. It is the Father who, through the Son as Logos, imparts himself to his creatures in the Spirit’.66 Bavinck not only identified the principium cognoscendi externum with theologia ectypa but also with religio objectiva. He argued that religio objectiva consists in that which is normative and ‘is identical with the revelation of God’.67 This follows from Bavinck having located the source of religio objectiva in the being of God.68 Thus, in Bavinck’s conception religio objectiva is co-​terminous with objective revelation. However, this places Bavinck in opposition to post-​Kantian conceptions of an ‘objective religion’ which held that if a concept of ‘objective religion’ existed, it existed in an inaccessible realm. Bavinck rejected this notion. The Logos, who is God’s pre-​eminent self-​revelation, is also the source of ‘objective religion’. But if Christ is truly whom the church confesses him to be, if he is not just the preacher but also the subject and the object of the gospel—​yes, in his person and work he is the gospel itself—​then the search for the essence of Christianity has not yet been brought to a conclusion. . . . Just because he is

of these, it is not the Father, but God himself which is the principium essendi. See: Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed., 1:435. 63 Van den Belt, Authority, 266. 64 Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed., 1:440–​445. 65 See below for more on the shift between the Logos and Scripture as the principium cognoscendi externum. 66 Bavinck, RD1, 214; GD1, 186. 67 Bavinck, RD1, 237; GD1, 209. 68 Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerdheid: Rede gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het Hoogleeraarsambt in de Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam (Wageningen: Vada, 1902), 15.

Theological Method  75 the subject and the object, the core and center of the gospel, he is not the origin nor its final destination.69

The Logos is the principium cognoscendi externum. He provides the content and object for theological reflection, and he is the objective revelation which corresponds to religio objectiva. At the same time, religion, as with all objects of scientific study, has a subjective side. Bavinck was keenly aware of this and, as has already been observed, believed that subject and object had to correspond for there to be a claim to true knowledge. That subjective side to the principia is the principium cognoscendi internum. We have already seen that Bavinck’s tripartite schema for the principia provides space for a Trinitarian conception of each principium. For Bavinck, the principium cognoscendi internum is the Holy Spirit. In Bavinck’s project the Holy Spirit was never far from the Logos. ‘But where the Logos is, there the Spirit is also’.70 Betraying his post-​Kantian context, Bavinck asserted, ‘All that is objective can be approached only from the vantage point of the subject: the “thing in itself ” [Ding an sich] is unknowable and does not exist for us’.71 The influence of the nineteenth-​century turn to the subject is clear here. Bavinck is using the grammar of the subject or ego or self.72 The objective revelation of God in the Logos provides an ectypal knowledge of God.73 The Holy Spirit as the principium cognoscendi internum is the organ through which the objective revelation of the Logos is received.74 ‘We need eyes in order to see. “If our eyes were not filled with sunshine, how could we see the light?” [Wär’ nicht das Auge sonnenhaft, wie könnten wir das Licht erblicken?] There just has to be correspondence or kinship between object and subject’.75

69 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Essence of Christianity’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 46–​47; ‘Het Wezen des Christendoms’ in Almanak van het studentcorps a/​d Vrije Universiteit, eds. J.F. van Beeck Calkoen, J.H. Broeks Roelofs, H.C. Rutgers, A.A. van Schelven, and J. Thijs (Amsterdam: Herdes, 1906), 276. 70 Bavinck, RD2, 421; GD2, 385. 71 Bavinck, RD1, 586; GD1, 555. 72 Bavinck, RD1, 609; GD1, 571; cf. Jan Veenhof, ‘De God van de filosofen en de God van de bijbel’ in Ontmoetingen met Herman Bavinck, eds. George Harinck and Gerrit Neven (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2006), 219–​234; Brock, Orthodox yet Modern, 16. 73 Bavinck, RD1, 214; GD1, 183–​184. 74 It is helpful here to think of the principium cognoscendi internum less as a ‘foundation’ or ‘source’ but as an organ through which one receives revelation. 75 Bavinck, RD1, 233; GD1, 207. It is notable that Bavinck provides an unattributed Goethe quote in this passage.

76  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck In this same line of thought Bavinck employed the idea of verbum internum when discussing the principium internum cognoscendi, calling it the verbum principale. The internal word [verbum internum] is the principal word [verbum principale], for it is this which introduces the knowledge of God into human beings, and that is the purpose of all theology, indeed of the whole self-​ revelation of God. The external word [verbum externum], the revelation recorded in Holy Scripture, in this connection serves as a means. It is the instrumental word [verbum instrumentale], necessary perhaps for all kinds of secondary reasons in this dispensation, but still by its nature provisional, temporary, and incidental.76

In this, Bavinck was making a claim concerning revelation and illumination. The work of the Holy Spirit brings objective revelation to its subjective telos.77 It must be remembered that Bavinck is making an epistemological claim and not a methodological one. The Holy Spirit works to accomplish this task. It is not that Bavinck is setting the work of the Logos and the Holy Spirit in a hierarchy, but that which the Father plans, the Son accomplishes, and the Spirit applies. Bavinck’s use of the German Romantic idealist notion of the organic, combined with the modified and extended use of the Reformed orthodox principia, provided him the structure with which he believed he was able to bridge the subject–​object divide. The question of whether he is successful in doing this in his epistemology is one that is still debated and will most likely not find a simple solution.78 However, Bavinck saw this as a way forward in 76 Bavinck, RD1, 213; GD1, 185. 77 Bavinck, RD1, 506; GD1, 471. 78 Sutanto and Pass seem to come to different conclusions on the successful deployment of the organic motif in particular. Sutanto has argued that Bavinck’s engagement with the organic motif has successfully brought together a ‘synthesis of classical and modern patterns of thought, between critical realism and absolute idealism, the emphasis on the specialization of the sciences on the one hand and its underlying unity on the other’. (Sutanto, God and Knowledge, 9). Pass on the other hand contends that the organic motif may precipitate certain problems specifically connected to a doctrine of Scripture and Christology. He explores the possibility that ‘organicism could be excised from Bavinck without fatally compromising the structure of his system’ (Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 188–​189). The question of the utility of organicism in Bavinck’s project still seems to be a live debate, and one that would be worthy of extended study. It seems that the best option could be that while the organic motif provides Bavinck a helpful tool for his project in his time and place, the utility of that motif fails in the contemporary context. It seems that one could make the argument that both Sutanto and Pass are correct to a certain extent. Bavinck’s use of the organic motif did, in fact, assist him in the bringing together of various thought patterns that were at odds with one another. However, this motif also opened other vistas that proved problematic in future generations.

Theological Method  77 bridging the divide both in general and theological epistemology. This structure, therefore, becomes the pattern on which Bavinck’s theological methodology is modelled; using the organic and principia as key concepts for the methodology as well. Having considered the subject–​object problem and Bavinck’s proposed solution for bridging the gap by deploying the organic in conjunction with the principia, the chapter now turns to see how Bavinck applied his theological epistemology to his theological methodology. In doing this, the foundation is laid for the subsequent chapters to deploy Bavinck’s methodology on his own work in Trinitarian theology.

Bavinck: The Organic, Principia, and Theological Methodology Methodology follows epistemology. Bavinck argues this when he says: ‘A person is not simply alive, but is also aware that he is alive. Within him all of nature, as it were, including himself, attains consciousness. Within him, it seeks its explanation, attempts to discern and behold itself in him’.79 Therefore, the theologian seeks to find the principium for theology. The principium is always derived from the object that is being studied. The epistemological convictions determine the method for finding this principium. The dogmatician does not have to invent or devise the system and the principium; but by means of serious research, by means of living into what he wants to study and describe, let him attempt to arrive at the discovery of what, out of all those truths, comprises the constitutive, governing basic idea, the innermost driving force, the hidden stirrings, the deepest root.80

To uncover the principium of dogmatics, the dogmatician goes to Scripture. However, it is never Scripture in isolation from the church or contemporary concerns. Dogmatics must have an ecclesiastical and provisional character to it. As Barth would counsel young theologians in the future, ‘Take your Bible and take your newspaper, and read both. But interpret newspapers from your Bible’.81 Bavinck held a similar view that the interaction between Scripture



79 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 92; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 59. 80 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 97; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 63.

81 Karl Barth, ‘Barth in Retirement’, Time (31 May 1963) 356.

78  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck and the church in dogmatics must always be done in conversation with the contemporary situation of the theologian. This is because dogmatics has a progressive nature to it, it is always ‘striving for perfection’.82 Each of these elements should be looked at in turn. However, what must not be overlooked is that each of these elements is interdependent. Dogmatic reflection takes place with all three of these together simultaneously.83 There is a unity to the diversity that pertains to theological methodology. As Bavinck understood it, post-​Kantian religious reflection tended toward a reading of one principium in isolation from the other two. Separated from each other, Bavinck argued that the principia—​Scripture, the church, and individual consciousness—​could be considered roughly analogous to a distinct religious movement. He believed that when isolated these elements devolved into a mere rationalism, mysticism, and pietism.84 For Bavinck, Reformed theology maintained a particular ability to overcome this one-​sidedness in religion. Reformed theologians sought that central point for religion in (as Calvin called it) the seed of religion [semen religionis] or sense of divinity [sensus divinitatis], and in the Christian religion [religio Christiana] theologians went behind faith and conversion to regeneration, which in principle is a renewal of the whole man. When they took a position on this center of man, they saw opportunity to avoid all one-​sidedness of rationalism, mysticism, and ethicism, and to maintain that religion is the animating principle of all life.85

A dogmatic system cannot be reduced to merely one piece but must encompass the whole. It cannot be solely rational, mystical, or ethical, but must be all three equally. A dogmatic system must be an organic whole.86 While in Bavinck’s estimation the three principia correlated to various religious movements (rationalism, mysticism, and pietism), he also connected with three human faculties: mind, feeling, and will. Even though these three faculties exist, Bavinck acknowledged only two faculties in a person: knowing and desiring (will). With regard to primacy, Bavinck wrote that knowledge is

82 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 97; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64.

83 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 100; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 66.

84 Bavinck, ‘Philosophy of Religion (Faith)’, 26–​27; ‘Philosophie des geloofs’, 10–​11. 85 Bavinck, ‘Philosophy of Religion (Faith)’, 29–​30; ‘Philosophie des geloofs’, 14. 86 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 95; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 61.

Theological Method  79 the first among equals: ‘[k]‌nowledge is primary. There can be no true service of God without true knowledge: “I do not desire anything I do not know” (Ignoti nulla cupido)’.87 Bavinck saw a place for feeling in religious reflection, yet he was careful to reject it as a faculty.88 The concern for Bavinck in giving feeling the status of a faculty was that it necessarily takes away from the faculties of knowing and willing, which he believed had produced disastrous results in modern theology.89 In Bavinck’s account, the modern theological trends that followed the lines of Schleiermacher had slipped into subjectivism, which he deemed to be little more than pantheistic mysticism. To safeguard against this, Bavinck contended that one needed to place Scripture as the sole principium of theology.90 The problematic part of this is that, unlike principia in mathematics and physics, in scientific theology there is a subjective work of the Spirit that is necessary to accept this axiom. That is to say, to accept Scripture as the sole principium of theology requires a work of the Spirit on the subject. Corresponding to Bavinck’s contention regarding the faculties that knowledge is primary in the principia of theological methodology, the same could be said of Scripture. For Bavinck, with regard to its nature, Scripture stood above both church confession and individual consciousness. Yet, the apprehension of this requires the subjective work of the Holy Spirit. This difficulty is highlighted in Bavinck’s correspondence with his friend from Leiden and world-​ renowned Dutch Arabist, Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857–​1936). In a letter responding to Bavinck’s 1883 inaugural address, Hurgronje explained to Bavinck that given Snouck Hurgronje’s own commitment to higher critical readings of the Bible, he found it impossible to take Scripture to an absolute and infallible axiom of theology. Ultimately, Snouck Hurgronje contended that while Bavinck had intended the address to be aimed at the theology emerging from Leiden, it ‘was directed to people with whom you agree’.91 In response to this concern Bavinck admitted that 87 Bavinck, RD1, 268; GD1, 240–​241. 88 Herman Bavinck, Beginselen der psychologie (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1897), 62. 89 Pass makes this same observation in Heart of Dogmatics (p. 71). While in contradiction to some of the observations that Brock has made, this point does not diminish the central thrust of his project. Brock has done a masterful job of showing how Bavinck appropriates much of Schleiermacher’s structure and questions. However, the evidence seems to point to the need to nuance some of Brock’s view regarding ‘feeling’ as a ‘faculty’. 90 Bavinck, Wetenschap der Godgeleerdeid, 10. 91 Herman Bavinck and Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, Een Leidse vriendschap: De briefwisseling tussen Herman Bavinck en Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje 1875–​1921, eds. J. de Bruijn and G. Harinck (Baarn: Ten Have, 1999), 107–​108. Dutch: Uwe rede nu was gericht tot met u eensdenkenden, bij wie deze met zoo harde woorden genoemde zaken niet bestreden behoeven te worden.

80  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck theology must start with a leap, ‘but not a salto mortale’.92 Bavinck admitted that his goal was to show the theological character of theology, and he conceded that he and his friend simply start in different spots. This is the difference between you and me (let me speak personally for a moment): you want, through and after research to come to this premise [that is, an a posteriori commitment to Scripture], I go forward from there [that is, an a priori premise of Scripture] and continue my research. I believe that this must be done if there is ever to be discussion of theology in a real sense.93

Dogma rests on the divine witness, revelation. The pressing question, therefore, for the theologian is, where does one locate divine revelation? Once again Bavinck makes a connection to the three principia. In his estimation Roman Catholicism located it in the church, whereas Schleiermacher (or modern theology) found it in the individual. However, the Reformed according to Bavinck understood Scripture to be the principal location of divine revelation. ‘Among Reformed theologians, therefore, the following proposition returns again and again: “the principle into which all theological dogmas are distilled is: God has said it” [principium, in quod omnia dogmata theologia resolvuntur: Deus Dixit]’.94 Ontologically while affirming Scripture’s weak human form, Bavinck still affirmed that Scripture stood far above church tradition and individual consciousness. Nevertheless, methodologically Scripture played a different role. As Bavinck understood the Reformed tradition, when a conflict arose among the three principia, Scripture, due to its nature, settled controversies. Methodologically, however, it was the first principia among equals. It was the source from which the other two principia derive their nature. Bavinck continued to employ the threefold principia structure in his theological methodology. God is the principium essendi. However, when speaking of methodology, the principium cognoscendi is revelation.95 Conceding the

92 Ibid., 111. Dutch: Ze moet dus beginnen met een sprong—​maar geen salto mortale. 93 Ibid., 111. Dutch: Dit is het verschil tusschen u en mij (laat me zoo maar eens persoonlijk spreken): gij wilt door en na onderzoek tot deze stelling komen, ik ga er van uit en ga dan aan ’t verder onderzoeken. Ik meen, dat dit laatste moet, zal er ooit van theologie in den eigenlijken zin sprake kunnen zijn. 94 Bavinck, GD1, 4; Cf. RD1, 30. Dutch: En daarom keert telkens bij de Gereformeerde theologen deze stelling terug: principium, in quod omnia dogmata theologia resolvuntur: Deus Dixit. 95 Bavinck, Wetenschap der Godgeleerdeid, 12.

Theological Method  81 need for both an objective and subjective side to the principium cognoscendi, Bavinck called Scripture the principium cognoscendi externum. In making this move Bavinck believed he had safeguarded his project from rationalism, on the one side, which takes human reason to be the sole principium, and the mysticism of Schleiermacher, on the other side, which gave ‘feeling’ the pride of place.96 This is not to say that Bavinck’s aim was to produce an arid cerebral piety. One can observe in his Reformed Ethics, a manuscript which he never finished nor published but which he prepared while working on the first edition of the Dogmatics, a place for mysticism in his methodology.97 For Bavinck, Scripture is the principium of theology. This is why when Bavinck started a search for the principium of theology he defaulted to going to Scripture to find that principium. ‘The source from which all dogmatic truth has sprung forth and continues to spring forth is only Holy Scripture alone.’98 The difficulty in accepting this arises from the worry of circular reasoning: how can a method assume the principium of the method when it is trying to show what the principium of the method is? Bavinck acknowledged this difficulty.99 As he understood it and argued, the answer rests in the place from which the principium comes. Whereas with other sciences the principium of reason arises in the individual person, in theology the principium comes from outside the individual. While Bavinck wanted to maintain Scripture as the principium for dogmatics, he also acknowledged that when it was abstracted from all else, Scripture produced a dogmatic system that bore a character which was at best non-​ ecclesiastical and at worst anti-​ ecclesiastical.100 However, in bringing the church into the conversation, once again Bavinck opens himself to the possible question of where authority ultimately rests. Yet, he remained unequivocal in this contention that ‘Scripture did not receive its

96 Ibid., 12 n14. Bavinck cites Charles Hodge in this footnote: ‘So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies,—​one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creeds and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns. It would be safe for a man to resolve to admit into his theology nothing which is not sustained by the devotional writings of true Christians of every denomination. It would be easy to construct from such writings, received and sanctioned by Romanists, Lutherans, Reformed, and Remonstrants, a system of Pauline or Augustinian theology, such as would satisfy any intelligent and devout Calvinist in the world’. See: Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 16–​17. 97 Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Ethiek, ed. Dirk van Keulen (Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum, 2019), §20; Reformed Ethics, ed. John Bolt, vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 279–​288. 98 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 97; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 63. 99 Bavinck, Wetenschap der Godgeleerdeid, 20. 100 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 98–​99; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64–​65.

82  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck authority from the church but itself, and it must be believed on its own account (autopistie), Scripture rests not on the church, but the other way round the church on Scripture’.101 As Bavinck argued to Snouck Hurgronje, the authority of Scripture is a necessary a priori commitment in theology. Thus, for Bavinck, the source of dogmatic truth is not the knowing subject, the church, or subjective faith. The source for truth in dogmatic reflection is objective revelation: it is Scripture. Tying these threads together Bavinck demonstrated the basis for constructing a dogmatic system. As has been shown above, Bavinck believed that a good dogmatic system was built on three elements: Scripture, the church, and the individual consciousness.102 Divine revelation comes from Scripture to the church, and, then, into the consciousness of the individual believer. In order of pedagogy the church is antecedent to Scripture, yet Bavinck was clear when he stated that ‘Scripture is self-​authenticating [αύτοπιστος], the judge of controversies [iudex controversiarum], and its own interpreter [sui ipsius interpres]. 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’.103 In line with the Reformed tradition, Scripture is not solely one principium among many for theology but the principium unicum.104 For Bavinck, this is because Scripture is where divine revelation is principally located. Standing in the line of Reformed theology, Bavinck maintained that it is Scripture, and not the church, that is αύτοπιστος. The confession of the church witnesses to the truth, which is found in Scripture and maintains it, but the confession of the church is not self-​attesting. Nevertheless, 101 Herman Bavinck, Handleiding bij het onderwijs in den christelijken godsdienst (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1913), 41. Dutch: De eerstgenoemde eigenschap hield in, dat de Schrift haar gezag niet aan de kerk, maar aan zichzelve ontleende, en om zichzelve geloofd moest worden (autopistie); de Schrift rust niet op de kerk, maar omgekeerd de kerk op de Schrift. One could make the argument, and Bavinck acknowledges this, that the actual situation is more complicated than Bavinck makes out: that is there is a mutual relationship between Scripture and the church in the process of canonization in which the church chose certain books and chose against others. Yet, for Bavinck this would be a denial of the self-​authenticating nature of Scripture. Bavinck’s argument is that the church does not choose what is canonical and what is not canonical, but the church acknowledges that which is already canonical. At a purely historical level this argument is made in that while there was a list of canonical books circulating in the early church, the church did not have an officially accepted list of canonical books until the Council of Trent (1545–​1563). This begs the historical question relating to the process of canonization: if the church chose the canon, why does it not produce an officially accepted list until the sixteenth century and that in response to the Reformation? 102 Bavinck, RD1, 84; GD1, 60. 103 Bavinck, RD1, 86; GD1, 63. 104 Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 2nd ed., 2:159–​160.

Theological Method  83 confessions are not superfluous to Bavinck. There is a need for confessions. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to have a dogmatic system that is devoid of confessions. This is because dogmatics is not a mere recitation of the biblical material, but a ‘development of the truth of Scripture’ and therefore bears ‘an ecclesiastical and confessional color’.105 Confessions are necessary for there to be a truly dogmatic theology.106 Moreover, with such a confession the church does not fail to do justice to the sufficiency of Scripture but only rearticulates what is contained in Scripture. The confession is not a statement alongside of, let alone above, but far below Scripture. Scripture alone is trustworthy in and of itself [αύτοπιστος, autopistos], unconditionally binding us to faith and obedience, unchanging; a confession, on the other hand, always remains examinable and revisable by the standard of Scripture. It is not a standardizing norm [norma normans] but at most a standardized norm [norma normata], not a norm of truth [norma Veritatis], but ‘a standard of doctrine received in a particular church’, [norma doctrina in aliqua ecclesia receptae] subordinate, fallible, the work of humans, an inadequate expression of what the church has absorbed from Scripture as divine truth and now confesses on the authority of God’s Word against all error and deception.107

While Scripture is the principium unicum, the theologian’s job is not to repeat Scripture but by means of Scripture ‘to think God’s thoughts after him’.108 The church witnesses to the truth of Scripture. The church has a role that is pedagogical in authority, but the church’s activity is not the ground of faith. As Scripture and the church are principia of theology, so also faith is a principium. However, it is never its own final grounds. ‘There is a huge ­difference between subjective certainty and objective truth. In the case of faith or belief, everything depends on the grounds on which it rests’.109 Thus, for Bavinck, the church maintained an important role in theological reflection. It is not enough for the church simply to receive the Word of God. The church was given the Word of God ‘to preserve, to explain, to preach, to translate, to spread, to praise, to defend, in a word, to make the thoughts of

105 Bavinck, RD1, 54; GD1, 32. 106

Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 98; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64.

107 Bavinck, RD4, 420–​421; GD4, 402–​403. 108 Bavinck, RD1, 44; GD1, 21.

109 Bavinck, RD1, 578; GD1, 546.

84  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck God, laid down in Scripture, triumph over the thoughts of humanity everywhere and at all times’.110 Therefore, in Bavinck’s view the Word of God prompted the church to action. Confession is the action which is produced when the church encounters Scripture. The church moves from Scripture to confession yet never moves beyond Scripture.111 As such, Bavinck contended that there is a place for tradition in theological method. ‘Tradition is the means by which all the treasures and possessions of our ancestors are transmitted to the present and the future’.112 This broad definition of tradition makes clear that in a certain sense, all of human society is bound up in tradition; religion no less than the family. Tradition, in Bavinck’s account, allowed a sense of cohesion and identity-​building for a group of people. One could go so far as to say that there is no unified society where there is no shared tradition. With this, Bavinck made a provocative move. The times have changed, and with the times people, their life, thought, and feelings, have changed. Therefore, a tradition is needed that preserves the connectedness between Scripture and the religious life of our time. Tradition in its proper sense is the interpretation and application of the eternal truth in the vernacular and life of the present generation. Scripture without such a tradition is impossible.113

On the surface of this, Bavinck could be accused of a contradiction. We have already seen that he has put Scripture forward as the principium unicum. It is the principium on which all theological reflection is derived. Nevertheless, here he claimed that there can be no Scripture without tradition. Thus, one wonders if Bavinck’s project fails before it even begins because of his inability to provide a coherent account of the relationship between these two principia; giving each equal authority, even asserting that there can be no Scripture without tradition. 110 Herman Bavinck, Magnalia Dei (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1909), 104. Dutch: Zij heeft integendeel de roeping, om dit Woord Gods te bewaren, uit te leggen, te verkondigen, toe te passen, te vertalen, te verspreiden, aan te prijzen, te verdedigen, in één woord, om de gedachten Gods, in de Schrift neergelegd, overal en ten allen tijde te doen triomfeeren over de gedachten van den mensch. 111 Bavinck, RD1, 474; GD1, 444–​445. 112 Bavinck, RD1, 492; GD1, 463. 113 Bavinck, RD1, 493; GD1, 464. Bavinck’s comment here also brings out some interesting connections to historicism. Bavinck argued that there are eternal truths, but those truths are historically bound and need to be communicated in contemporary language. Once again, this quote is evidence that Bavinck’s context in the nineteenth-​century turn to history affects how he thinks about theology and theological reasoning.

Theological Method  85 The accusation would have been substantial, had Bavinck not incorporated the organic motif into his theological methodology. Thus, it is to the organic that Bavinck turned to reconcile this apparent contradiction. The Reformation recognizes only a tradition that is founded on and flows from Scripture [traditio e Scriptura fluens]. To the mind of the Reformation, Scripture was an organic principle from which the entire tradition, living on in preaching, confession, liturgy, worship, theology, devotional literature, etc., arises and is nurtured. It is a pure spring of living water from which all the currents and channels of the religious life are fed and maintained. Such a tradition is grounded in Scripture itself. After Jesus completed his work, he sent forth the Holy Spirit who, while adding nothing new to the revelation, still guides the church into the truth (John 16:12–​15) until it passes through all its diversity and arrives at the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 3:18, 19; 4:13). In this sense there is a good, true, and glorious tradition. It is the method by which the Holy Spirit causes the truth of Scripture to pass into the consciousness and life of the church. Scripture, after all, is only a means, not the goal. The goal is that, instructed by Scripture, the church will freely and independently make known ‘the wonderful deeds of him who called it out of darkness into his marvelous light’ (1 Pet. 2:9). The external word [verbum externum] is the instrument, the internal word [verbum internum] the aim. Scripture will have reached its destination when all have been taught by the Lord and are filled with the Holy Spirit.114

In Bavinck’s eyes, the three principia do not compete against each other because the three are in an organic relationship. Thus, the question is not one of a particular principium dominating the other two but of the three being a relationship of mutuality. It could be said that in Bavinck, Scripture bears a magisterial authority and is thus the starting point for theological reflection, yet pedagogically the starting point is the tradition in which the Christian finds herself because that is where she learns to read Scripture. ‘Scripture without such a tradition is impossible’.115 All of this harkens back to Bavinck’s discussion of principia and the connection to the categories of theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa. Because

114 Bavinck, RD1, 493–​494; GD1, 464–​465. 115 Bavinck, RD1, 493; GD1, 464.

86  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck God knows himself perfectly (theologia archetypa), he is the principium essendi of theology. In divine revelation God makes himself known and makes that knowledge available to creatures. That is contained in Holy Scriptures (principium congnoscendi externum) which gives limited and creaturely knowledge of God (theologia ectypa in se). Finally, the work of the Holy Spirit in illumination of the human mind (principium cognoscendi internum) reveals the divine knowledge to the human consciousness (theologia ectypa in subjecto).116 As we have seen, this last form of theology is the goal of theology, to know and glorify God. ‘The aim of theology, after all, can be no other than that the rational creature know God and, knowing him, glorify God (Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 3:17)’.117 In Bavinck’s estimation the proper end of theology is to glorify God. This requires that the objective revelation be subjectively received. It also points to the temporary nature of Scripture and the church. ‘Revelation, Scripture, the church, the whole Christian religion indeed bears a provisional, preparatory, and pedagogical character’.118 The goal, as we have already seen, is the application of revelation to the Christian consciousness. Objective revelation reaches its goal in subjective revelation by the Spirit to the hearts of people. Bavinck pointed to this truth in the opening to his two short systematic texts, which he wrote after he finished his revisions of Reformed Dogmatics in an effort to make the content of the Dogmatics more widely accessible, Magnalia Dei and Handleiding bij het onderwijs in de christelijken godsdienst. The opening words in both these works is, ‘Humanity’s highest good is God and God alone’.119 Knowing God subjectively is the highest good for a person. In revelation the Spirit witnesses to Christ. The Spirit does this objectively in Scripture and subjectively in the hearts of individual people.120 Bavinck noted that this principium for theological methodology had become more prominent in the post-​Schleiermacher era.121 The tying in of Christian consciousness permits a dogmatic system to display its organic character. Just as

116 Bavinck, RD1, 213–​214; GD1, 185–​186. 117 Bavinck, RD1, 213; GD1, 184. 118 Bavinck, RD1, 473; GD1, 443. 119 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 9; Handleiding, 1. Dutch: Des menschen hoogste goed is God, en God alleen. Chapter 5 will bring out some of the nineteenth-​century late Romantic idealist influences that are tied into placing this particular phrase at the opening of these books. While it is not explicitly laid out here, this idea has a strong tie to German personalism and particularly the speculative theists such as I.H. Fichte and C.H. Weisse. 120 Bavinck, RD1, 506; GD1, 471. 121 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 99–​100; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 65–​66.

Theological Method  87 an organism continues to grow and develop, because it is an organic whole a dogmatic system demonstrates the attributes of growth and development. Christian consciousness as a principium goes hand-​in-​hand with the confession ecclesia reformata semper reformanda. As such Bavinck wrote: First, there is no church nor school which fully identifies its view of Christianity with the original Christianity itself. It is true that every group considers its own interpretation correct and, as such, defends it against all others, but nevertheless each church and each school distinguishes between the truth that has appeared in Christ and the insight it has, therein, gained and expressed in a fallible manner in its confession.122

Thus, he asserted that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is the confession that at no particular time or place did the church receive all the truth, but that the Spirit is still leading the church into the truth.123 Yet, with this turn to the subject, it seems that Bavinck could have left himself open to the charge of subjectivism. If a dogmatic system is constantly growing and developing, what is the place of creeds and confessions, church history and tradition, in the dogmatic system? It could be said that, at least for the purpose of defending Scripture and protecting against heresies, confessions are invaluable. They guard against an overly subjective theological method. Yet even in this construction it could be argued that creeds and confessions are higher than Scripture if they defend Scripture. Nevertheless, Bavinck contended that confessions play a secondary role and the authority of Scripture is unparalleled. ‘Scripture alone is the norm and rule of faith and life (norma et regula fidei et vitae). The confession deserves credence only because and insofar as it agrees with Scripture and, as the fallible work of human hands, remains open to revision and examination by the standard of Scripture’.124 122 Herman Bavinck, Het Christendom (Baarn: Hollandia, 1912), 5–​6. Dutch: Ten eerste is er geen kerk en geen richting, die hare opvatting van het Christendom geheel en al met het oorspronkelijk Christendom vereenzelvigt. Wel is waar houdt iedere partij hare interpretatie voor de juiste en verdedigt ze als zoodanig tegen alle andere, maar desniettemin maakt elke kerk en elke richting onderscheid tusschen de waarheid, die in Christus verschenen is, en het inzicht, dat zij daarin verkregen en op gebrekkige, feilbare wijze in hare belijdenis uitgedrukt heeft. 123 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 100; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 66. 124 Bavinck, RD1, 86; GD1, 63. It is interesting to note Bavinck’s use of the phrase ‘because and in so far as’ in light of his historical context. The question over confessional subscription loomed large over the history of the Secession church. The issue that surrounded the church in early years was whether one subscribes to the Reformed confessions ‘because’ (quia) they were in conformity with Scripture or did one

88  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Thus, we can sense a problematic concern arise in Bavinck’s theological methodology. Bavinck opens himself to the charge of subjectivism when he assigns the place of a principium to faith or individual consciousness. Cornelius van der Kooi argues as much concerning Bavinck’s theological methodology.125 Van der Kooi considers that ‘Bavinck has formulated a vulnerable and even a dubious starting point for Reformed theology. . . rather than a strong position’.126 The reason for this is that Bavinck maintains that ‘[t]‌he Reformation—​deliberately and freely—​took its position in the religious subject, in the faith of the Christian, in the testimony of the Holy Spirit’.127 Van der Kooi argues that this position does not leave sufficient room for the church to function as an authority in theological reflection, thus producing a method that leans toward subjectivism. As van der Kooi understands Bavinck, the position Bavinck gave faith is largely a polemic against Rome: whereas Bavinck considered Rome to have abased faith by making it mere intellectual assent to doctrines and, thus, insufficient for salvation,128 the Reformation gives it ‘its own character and irreducible quality’.129 Bavinck’s understanding of the role of faith falls squarely in line with Reformed theology in considering it to be the instrument with which Christians are united to Christ. ‘Those who believe in that way are not in the vestibule but in the very sanctuary of Christian truth. They are incorporated into Christ, participants in all his benefits, heirs of eternal life’.130 For van der Kooi, then, Bavinck has established an intimate connection between faith and the inner testimony of the Spirit. Van der Kooi posits that this post-​Kantian thinking detaches the subject from her community, and makes her a-​historical.131 The inner testimony of the Spirit (testimonium Spiritus Sancti) ends up playing the fundamental role in this reading of Bavinck. The Spirit must work on the individual to make her respond to the Scripture. subscribe ‘to the extent’ (quatenus) that they were in conformity to Scripture. In Bavinck’s description of the confessions, he unites both of these phrases. See: Harinck and Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’, 457–​460. 125 Cornelius van der Kooi, ‘The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’, Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 103–​112. 126 Van der Kooi, ‘Inner Testimony of the Spirit’, 103. 127 Bavinck, RD1, 583; GD1, 552. 128 Bavinck, RD1, 571–​572; GD1, 540–​541. 129 Van der Kooi, ‘Inner Testimony of the Spirit’, 104. 130 Bavinck, RD1, 572–​573; GD1, 541. 131 Van der Kooi, ‘Inner Testimony of the Spirit’, 108.

Theological Method  89 What really causes us to believe is not the insight of our intellect, nor a decision of our will, but a power that is superior to us, bends our will, illumines our mind, and without compulsion still effectively takes our thoughts and reflections captive to the obedience of Christ [2 Cor. 10:5].132

The fascinating thing to note in all of this is the placement of faith and its natural connection to the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Henk van den Belt notes that faith is most often discussed in connection with the work of the Spirit in the Reformed orthodox tradition.133 Bavinck located his discussion of faith in his prolegomena.134 Bavinck himself did not explain his reasoning behind placing faith in the prolegomena. The logical inference one could make from this positioning is that the question surrounding the correspondence of subject and object was so important for him that when he started to discuss the principium externium, he was naturally led to a discussion of the principium internum of theology: faith. By locating faith (the principium internum) in the prolegomena, Bavinck was required to discuss the work of Spirit in the prolegomena as well. After all, faith is a gift of the Spirit.135 Bavinck asserted that the ‘witness of the Holy Spirit [testimonium Spiritus Sancti] has been all too one-​sidedly applied, by Calvin and later Reformed theologians, to the authority of Holy Scripture’.136 In attempting to fix this perceived error, Bavinck argued for a more well-​ rounded understanding of the role of the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. [T]‌he testimony of the Holy Spirit is of a religious-​ethical kind and intimately bound up with people’s own faith life. It does not bypass people’s faith; it is not a voice from heaven, a dream or a vision. It is a witness that the Holy Spirit communicates in, with, and through our own spirit in faith.137

Bavinck’s engagement with Calvin on the testimonium Spiritus Sancti was not solely critical. In another passage he demonstrated an appreciation of Calvin’s approach, stating: 132 Bavinck, RD1, 591; GD1, 561. 133 Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 273. 134 Bavinck, RD1, 102; GD1, 79. Bavinck cites both Ames (b. 1576) and Mastricht (b. 1630) as people who also placed faith in the prolegomena. 135 Bavinck, RD1, 572; GD1, 541. 136 Bavinck, RD1, 593; GD1, 563. 137 Bavinck, RD1, 593; GD1, 563–​564. (NB: The English translation italicizes ‘in, with, and through’. However, the original Dutch does not have these words in italics. Therefore, I have chosen to omit the italics.)

90  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Calvin knew that in this doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit [testimonium Spiritus Sancti] he was not describing some private revelation but the experience of all believers. Nor was this testimony of the Holy Spirit isolated from the totality of the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers but integrally united with it. By it alone the entire church originates and exists. The entire application of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit; and the witness to Scripture is but one of many of his activities in the community of believers.138

Yet, van der Kooi still sees an undervaluing of the church and an over-​estimation of the individual. He posits that Bavinck made an ontological argument: first the individual, and then the church. That is, the church is nothing more than the sum of individual believers.139 Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether this is a fair reading of Bavinck’s turn to the subject. Bavinck embraced the epistemological turn to the subject. His critique of the philosophical context in which he finds himself is not that they are too subjective, but rather that they are not subjective enough. In this, Bavinck is careful to maintain an objective principle in his theological method, objective revelation (principium externum). Van der Kooi is correct in noting that the price paid for moving faith to the prolegomena is the entrance of a subjective element into the ground of Bavinck’s dogmatic system. Yet, it would seem that Bavinck was self-​consciously doing something that he had already done unconsciously: namely, he was maintaining the connection of the subjective and objective principles. It is not the mind, reason, heart, or will that is the principium internum, but rather, faith itself.140 In view of Bavinck’s own argument, the charge of subjectivism seems unfounded. For, in the first place, in no area of knowledge and science is there any other starting point. Light presupposes the eye, and sound is perceptible only by the ear. All that is objective exists for us only by means of a subjective consciousness; without consciousness the whole world is dead for us. Always in human beings an internal principle [principium internum] has to correspond to the external principle [principium externum] if there is to be a relation between object and subject.141

138 Bavinck, RD1, 583–​584; GD1, 553. 139

Van der Kooi, ‘Inner Testimony of the Spirit’, 107.

140 Bavinck, RD1, 563; GD1, 532. 141 Bavinck, RD1, 564; GD1, 532.

Theological Method  91 While Bavinck sees that modern theology has made the right move in starting in the subject, he believed that the fault lies in making the subject the first principle of theology.142 ‘Yes, the whole world, all things, God himself exist for us only in and through our consciousness. Without consciousness, I am dead to the world and the whole world is dead to me’.143 To keep the subjective principle from becoming the first principle and, therefore descending into subjectivism, Bavinck asserts that the prinicipium internum is the illumination of the Spirit or the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. Bavinck can make this claim because while objective revelation is the principium cognoscendi externum, it is the Holy Spirit who is the principia cognoscendi internum. The Spirit witnesses to Christ in the objective revelation of the Scripture and ‘subjectively in the very hearts of human beings’.144 This assertion guards against subjectivism because God is author of both objective and subjective revelation. The person of the Spirit indwelling the believer gives them a fitting organ for receiving the objective revelation. ‘God can be known only by God’.145 Bavinck maintained that while his theological method was subjective, it did not descend into subjectivism for two reasons: first, the subject is not made the first principle, and secondly, there is a correspondence between principium externum and principium internum. Nevertheless, van der Kooi’s concern over the place of the church in Bavinck’s theological methodology is important to address. Is there a place for the church to function as a regulating authority in theological reflection? We have already seen that Bavinck envisions the church as a pedagogical authority. However, is there some truth in van der Kooi’s contention that Bavinck undervalued the church and overvalued the individual? Looking at Bavinck’s discussion of the principium internum may assist in assessing this argument. It is notable how often he connected the church with

In this one can hear echos of the debate in which Barth and Emil Brunner would engage in the coming years. Brunner would argue that all humans seek after God in some ways. Barth, on the other hand, argued that humanity’s search for God had no meaning. Thus, all theology must start with the Word of God. See: John Webster, Barth (London: Continuum, 2000); Colin Gunton, The Barth Lectures (London: T&T Clark, 2007); Paul Nimmo, Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017). 142 Bavinck, RD1, 565. Interestingly Bavinck attributes this error to Schleiermacher. 143 Herman Bavinck, ‘Het dualisme in de Theologie’, De Vrije Kerk 13:1 (January 1887), 33–​34. Dutch: Ja, heel de wereld, alle dingen, God zelf bestaan voor ons alleen in en door middel van ons bewustzijn. Zonder het bewustzijn ben ik voor de wereld en is de gansche wereld dood voor mij. 144 Bavinck, RD1, 506; GD1, 471. 145 Bavinck, RD1, 506; GD1, 471.

92  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck the faith of the individual believer. When contrasting the role of the church as institution, as Bavinck understood the Roman Catholic position to be, and the Reformed understanding of the church, he noted: According to the Reformation, revelation, Scripture, is indeed given to the church also, but to the church as organism, to the community of the faithful, to believers. They are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The testimony of the Holy Spirit [testimonium Spiritus Sancti] is the property of all believers. Where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, there he is in the midst. According to Rome, the institution is the essence of the church; according to the Reformation, it is a temporary means, but the essence of the church consists in the gathering of believers. It is the dwelling of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit.146

Again, when taking up the subject–​ object question, Bavinck insisted that Christian theology was ‘born out of faith, was at all times intimately bound up with the church, and continually guided and controlled by the slogan: “through faith to understanding” (per fidem ad intellectum)’.147 It seems that for Bavinck, the individual and the church are closely connected; too closely, it seems, to be divided from each other. What has been shown is that Bavinck’s theological epistemology influenced and shaped his theological methodology. Bavinck saw three principia that roughly correlated to the three principia in the epistemology and also bore a Trinitarian structure. While Scripture is the principium unicum, church tradition still had a distinctive and pedagogical authority in the formulation of his theological propositions. However, in this project, the nineteenth-​century turn to the subject is not ignored. Bavinck paid attention to the individual Christian consciousness in his methodology; attempting to maintain a subjective method without descending into subjectivism. These three principia cannot be separated from each other as they are in an interdependent relationship—​they form an organic whole. When taken individually and not considered as part of a whole, the relationship between them would seem to descend into competition, with one principium being placed in a position of dominance over the others, and eventually subjugating them. Ontologically, Scripture is above the church and Christian consciousness.

146 Bavinck, RD1, 506–​507; GD1, 472. 147 Bavinck, RD1, 564; GD1, 532.

Theological Method  93 Methodologically, Scripture is the first among equals. In Bavinck’s dogmatic system they were interdependent.

Conclusion The nineteenth century saw a change not only in philosophical but also theological foundations. Many of the principles that grew out of the Aufklärung, found their fruition in the early German Romantic period known as Frühromantik, which extended from the summer of 1796 to the summer of 1801. This was one of the chief movements that both challenged and refined the Aufklärung with Friedrich Schleiermacher as a leading voice.148 As has been noted, Bavinck himself regarded Schleiermacher’s influence on all subsequent theology as unparalleled. In his Speeches, Schleiermacher placed history as the chief object of religious reflection.149 His Christian Faith took up this new outlook and proved to be a tour de force in formulating a dogmatic theology for his day. In the Glaubenslehre he structured his project around the individual Christian consciousness ‘to the redemption accomplished through Jesus of Nazereth’.150 Schleiermacher’s aim was to ensure that his dogmatic theology was distinctively ‘Christian’. As a consequence of doing this, all dogmatic formulations and logical structuring were free for evaluation. This led to his re-​envisioning of the location of the Trinity in his project, setting it at the end either as a capstone to his theological project or a mere appendix.151

148 Beiser, The Romantic Imperative, 23–​87. 149 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, ed. and trans. Richard Crouter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 42. 150 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith: A New Translation and Critical Edition, trans. Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), §11, p. 79. 151 Those that hold that Schleiermacher is in continuity with history can be represented by Brian A. Gerrish, Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978); Samuel Powell, ‘Nineteenth-​Century Protestant Doctrines’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 267–​280. For those arguing that Schleiermacher’s Trinitarian theology is little more than an appendix, see: Karl Barth, The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen, Winter Semester of 1923–​24, ed. Dietrich Ritschl, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); Emil Brunner, Die Mystik und Das Wort: De Gegensatz zwischen moderner Religionsauffassung und christlichen Glauben (Tübingen: J.C.B Mohr, 1924); H.R. Mackintosh, Types of Modern Theology: Schleiermacher to Barth (London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1937); Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981).

94  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Part of the reason that the Trinity proved difficult to situate in Schleiermacher’s project is the nature of the doctrine. At its core, the doctrine of the Trinity describes the divine life in se. This is not a doctrine that can be derived from the individual Christian consciousness as it relates to redemption. Schleiermacher himself evaluated the doctrine thus: ‘this doctrine is not itself an expression that immediately conveys Christian self-​ consciousness but is only a combination of several such doctrines’.152 For Schleiermacher, the issue of the foundation of Trinitarian dogma played a large role in consigning it to the final spot in the Christian Faith. However, this is not Schleiermacher’s only critique. He also saw the doctrine as unfinished. Since we have all the less reason to regard this doctrine as settled in that it did not receive any fresh treatment when the Evangelical church (Der evangelischen Kirche) was established, it must still await a reorganization of it that goes back to its very beginning.153

As was shown in the previous chapter, for Schleiermacher, dogmatic theology is a snapshot of what the church believes at a particular time and in a particular place. This assumption would mean that the dogmatic reflection on the Trinity should have been updated since the church is not the same as it was before the Reformation. However, the doctrine of the Trinity has not progressed or developed. Due to this reality, Trinitarian theology needed an overhaul that made it cohere with the progress made in Protestant theology. For Schleiermacher, the Protestant understanding of redemption radically reformed the way all theological loci were conceived. In the Glaubenslehre, Schleiermacher set out a new path for Protestant theology, within which redemption was key to understanding structural unity. When he came to the Trinity, Schleiermacher believed what he did was a ‘preliminary step forward’ to either a re-​envisioning of the doctrine or a jettisoning of it.154 Theologians such as Adolf von Harnack (1851–​1930), Julius Kaftan (1848–​ 1926), and Theodor Häring (1848–​1928) picked up and advanced their vision of Trinitarian theology using Schleiermacher’s method. Their work was an attempt to mediate a path between Schleiermacher and more traditional methods for envisioning Trinitarian theology. Nevertheless, Bavinck claimed that their attempts to do so were bound to fail because they undervalued the

152 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §170, p. 1019. 153 154

Ibid., §172, p. 1031. Ibid., §172.3, p. 1035.

Theological Method  95 doctrine of the church and the teaching of Scripture while overvaluing ‘useless speculation’.155 In the midst of this theological reframing, Herman Bavinck worked to develop his constructive project through the grid of his theological method which was influenced by historicism. Engagement with contemporary philosophical issues was not a problem for Bavinck. However, that engagement in conjunction with the neglect of church confessions and the Scripture produced a dogmatic system that would become ‘subjective, individualistic, fashionable in the modern sense of the word’.156 Trinitarian theology in liberal Protestant circles had unmoored itself from traditional orthodox positions and had become a subjective theology. Working in a confessionally orthodox context, Bavinck endeavoured to apply his three principia of theological methodology to his Trinitarian theology: Scripture, church confession, and individual consciousness. This meant engaging with modern theological and philosophical reasoning while Scripture and the Church confession functioned as checks on him and his project, giving him an objective foundation. Thus, contra Schleiermacher, Bavinck saw an important role for retrieval of a traditional understanding of Trinitarian theology. The thinking mind situates the doctrine of the Trinity squarely amid the full-​orbed life of nature and humanity. A Christian’s confession is not an island in the ocean but a high mountaintop from which the whole creation can be surveyed. And it is the task of Christian theologians to present clearly the connectedness of God’s revelation with, and its significance for, all of life. The Christian mind remains unsatisfied until all of existence is referred back to the triune God, and until the confession of God’s Trinity functions at the center of our thought and life.157

This chapter has laid out Bavinck’s methodology as a unified method. Bavinck situated Scripture, the church, and individual consciousness as three distinct principia which held together as an organic whole. While Bavinck sought to ensure an objective foundation, the critique that could be levelled against him is that he never truly achieves this. An argument could be made that Scripture is an objective foundation, but it can only be accessed subjectively.



155 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 262. 156

Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 100; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 66.

157 Bavinck, RD2, 330; GD2, 297.

96  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck I have argued in this chapter that the influence of historicism allowed Bavinck to see theology as a progressive science. His goal was not repristination of the old but a progressive development into the future. The chapter made this argument by looking at the subject–​object gap that occurs in post-​Kantian thought. It then considered Bavinck’s appropriation and modification of the early modern Reformed orthodox categories of principia. Finally, the chapter turned to how Bavinck applied these categories to Scripture, the Church, and individual consciousness in the formation of his theological methodology. The following three chapters will move from the unified organic whole to an examination of each of the particular parts of Bavinck’s methodology in an attempt to see how Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology. I will do this to make the larger argument of this project; namely, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on Bavinck’s theological methodology. Bavinck’s method applied to the Trinity is especially appropriate if Fred Sanders is correct in saying, ‘For well over a century, the doctrine [of the Trinity] remained dormant where Schleiermacher’s influence was felt’.158 If one is to believe Bavinck that Schleiermacher thoroughly influenced his own thought, one wonders if Bavinck did anything with Trinitarian theology aside from restating old orthodoxies. Going forward we will see that Bavinck’s theology is immersed ‘in the texts and habits of earlier (especially pre-​modern) theology’,159 and that there is not an illusion of a pristine form of Christianity. ‘[T]‌he problem is not modern theology but simply theology’.160

158 Fred Sanders, ‘The Trinity’ in Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction, eds. Kelly Kapic and Bruce McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 33. 159 John Webster, ‘Theologies of Retrieval’ in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, eds. Kathryn Tanner, John Webster, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 584. 160 Ibid., 596.

3 Trinity and Retrieval Revelation

In 1908, Bavinck was invited to deliver the Stone Lectures—​a series of prestigious guest lectures given by invitation—​at Princeton Theological Seminary. His colleague Abraham Kuyper had delivered his Stone Lectures series, which would become Lectures on Calvinism, ten years prior—​a book that gained fame and influence not only in Reformed theological circles in the United States but around the world through their translation into fifteen modern languages.1 Bavinck’s lectures have not gained as widespread a reading, but this is not for lack of erudition or the import of his topic. In distinction to Kuyper’s wide-​ranging discussion of the implications of Calvinism for a ‘world and life view’, Bavinck’s Stone Lectures were a study in a philosophy of revelation, an argument for the reasonableness of believing in divine revelation. The lecture series considered the idea that Deus dixit: God has spoken and, in his speaking, he has revealed himself. He has revealed himself and is knowable. Bavinck engaged this thought by asking the questions of ‘where’ and ‘how’ regarding that revelation.2 In the first lecture Bavinck proclaimed, ‘If God does not exist, if he has not revealed himself and hence is unknowable, then all religion is an illusion and all theology a phantasm’.3 In

1 Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism: The Stone Lectures of 1898 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008); Tjitze Kuipers, Abraham Kuyper: An Annotated Bibliography 1857–​2010, ed. Barend Meijer (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 16. James Bratt has noted Kuyper’s enduring legacy first in the Christian Reformed Church not only in the academic and activist world but also among the average factory worker and farmer. Bratt observes that while the Dutch Reformed community in America adopted Kuyper’s program more slowly than Kuyper urged, it was this slowness that allowed for Lectures on Calvinism to have their influence. After the World Wars and the brief engagement in Fundamentalism, the Kuyperian tradition provided the intellectual resources for cultural engagement for which many in the American evangelical movement were looking. See: James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2013), 261–​ 279; cf. Richard Mouw, Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2011). 2 Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, eds., ‘Introduction’ in Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), xxii. 3 Ibid., 22.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0004

98  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck short Bavinck argued, there can be no theology if God has not first revealed himself. In Philosophy of Revelation, the book that came out of Bavinck’s Stone Lectures, Bavinck was speaking directly to nineteenth-​and early twentieth-​ century sceptics. In it, Bavinck makes a defense for the reasonableness of divine revelation. Bavinck’s aim was at a new form of atheism which had sprung up following the death of Nietzsche.4 While Kant argued that humans might be able to grasp a notion of God through the faculty of reason alone, Bavinck believed that even this reasoning requires God to self-​disclose, even if only in a general way.5 Nonetheless, Bavinck also maintained that if there is to be true knowledge of the true God, reason alone was insufficient.6 To attain that knowledge, God must be engaged in a special revelation.7 What is more, as Bavinck understood it, to come to a knowledge of the triunity of God, special revelation would have to take the form of both revelatory acts and revelatory words. Bavinck believed that God had done just that in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: ‘And so Scripture contains all the data from which theology has constructed the dogma of the Trinity’.8 Without this special revelation from God, and specifically the revelatory acts and revelatory words laid down in Scripture, God’s triunity would be a mystery. However, with this inscripturated revelation the mystery of the Trinity is now revealed.9 4 James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, Forthcoming), 250–​ 253; George Harinck, ‘Herman Bavinck and the Neo-​ Calvinist Concept of the French Revolution’ in James Eglinton and George Harinck, eds., Neo-​Calvinism and the French Revolution (London: T&T Clark, 2014), 13–​30; Gordon Graham, ‘Bavinck, Nietzche, and Secularization’ in The Kuyper Center Review, Vol. 2: Revelation and Common Grace, ed. John Bowlin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 18. 5 Immanuel Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Along, trans. Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson (New York: Harper & Row, 1960); Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, ed. and trans. Richard Crouter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 6 Herman Bavinck, Handleiding bij het Onderwijs in den Christelijken Godsdienst (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1913), 8. 7 Ibid., 55. 8 Bavinck, RD2, 279; GD2, 245–​246. While not the concern of this thesis, it should be noted that late nineteenth-​century Protestant liberalism was highly critical of the doctrine. Theologians such as Albrecht Ritschl and his students, Wilhelm Hermann, Adolf von Harnack, and Ernst Troeltsch all took a hesitant position regarding claims about the Trinity. Bavinck was aware of these critiques, although this it did not stop him from making these claims. Samuel Powell, The Trinity in German Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 142–​172; Herman Bavinck, ‘De Theologie van Albrecht Ritschl’, Theologische Studiën 6 (1888), 379; ‘The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl’, trans. John Bolt, The Bavinck Review 3 (2012), 133. 9 Bavinck, GD2, 1; RD29. The first words in volume two of Reformed Dogmatics is Bavinck’s famous, ‘Mystery is the lifeblood of dogmatics’. Bavinck then proceeds to discuss this mystery and how the knowledge of it is the ‘central dogma’ (centrale dogma) of the cognitio Dei. For more on this, see below. It is interesting to note that, for Bavinck, there is a sense in which the triunity of God is more concealed than other doctrines. Unlike a doctrine such as the divine attributes where one can

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  99 For Bavinck, the doctrine of the Trinity is grounded in revelation. This doctrine comes ‘to the fore much more clearly, not as a result of abstract reasonings about the divine being but by God’s self-​revelation in appearance, word, and deed’.10 The fact of Deus dixit grounds all of Bavinck’s theology. However, God’s speech is not mere propositional statements (i.e., words alone), nor are the works of God taken in isolation (i.e., deeds alone).11 It is the missions of the Son and the Spirit which are fundamentally communicative acts that function as the supreme revelatory acts for constructing the doctrine of the Trinity. Still, these communicative acts are coupled with divine speech forming the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. The story of God’s self-​revelation through redemption as told and interpreted in Scripture reaches its communicative climax in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit. As such, Bavinck saw the incarnation and Pentecost as the climatic events through which the rest of Scripture is read. In the incarnate Son of God we see the fulfillment of every prophecy and shadow of the Old Testament, of prophet and king, of priest and sacrifice, of Servant of the Lord and Son of David, of the angel of the Lord [Malak Jhvh] and wisdom. And in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit we witness the realization of what the Old Testament had promised (Acts 2:16ff.; Joel 2:28–​29).12

In these two events the mystery that was concealed in the Old Testament (namely, the triunity of God) is revealed. It is to this argument that this chapter turns. Having already set out Bavinck’s philosophical context and laid out his theological methodology in Chapters 1 and 2, this chapter applies what has been demonstrated to the first principium of Bavinck’s theological method, namely revelation.

encounter lists of the attributes (i.e., Ex 33:17–​23), Trinitarian theology is not expressly stated as a propositional statement for Scripture but in acts which are then supplemented with and interpreted by words. (See: Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 235.) 10 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 234. 11 This is not to discount a speech–​act understanding of words. Rather it is only to say that Bavinck understood that revelation comes in both word and deed. For more on speech–​act theory see: J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975). 12 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 235.

100  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck This is to begin the process of examining how Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology to see the extent to which the nineteenth-​century turn to history influenced his theological methodology. In this chapter I argue that in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned Scripture as the foundation of this Trinitarian theology even while his conception of revelation maintained a Trinitarian structure. To do this I will take my lead from Bavinck: ‘The source from which all dogmatic truth has sprung forth and continues to spring forth is only Holy Scripture alone’.13 This chapter turns to that specific source, considering how Bavinck engaged with Scripture. In order to do this, the chapter will move in three steps. First, it will examine revelation, considering how Bavinck understood all revelation to be chiefly oriented toward revealing the Triune God, and, thus, is Christologically determined and triune in shape. Second, it will turn to Bavinck’s explanation of the missions of the Son and the Spirit as communicative in nature; looking at how revelation of the Trinity, for Bavinck, is not less than words but also more than merely words. Third, and finally, the chapter will focus on the incarnation and Pentecost as the pinnacle of Trinitarian revelation; demonstrating the inter-​connection, for Bavinck, in missions ad extra and processions ad intra. This chapter’s consideration of Scripture lays the foundation for Chapters 4 and 5. I have already demonstrated in the previous chapter that considering each of these principia in isolation produces something of an artificial reading of Bavinck’s methodology. For Bavinck, these principia are interdependent and part of an organic whole. Yet for the sake of a study of this nature, it is necessary to examine each individually and risk the reductionism of the investigatory method. Thus, this chapter will consider Scripture, and the following two will examine the church and Christian consciousness each in turn. In doing all this, I not only build on Chapters 1 and 2 but prepare for Chapters 4 and 5, helping to construct the larger argument of this book; namely, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck.

13 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 97; ‘Het voor en tegens can een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 63.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  101

Revelation: The Triune God’s Self-​Disclosure In the previous chapter we saw that Bavinck opened both Magnalia Dei and Handleiding with the same line: ‘Humanity’s highest good is God and God alone’.14 With these words, Bavinck indicated what he believed to be the end for which humanity was created. Humanity exists for God, who is our highest good. Before he discussed anything else in these two works of systematic theology, both of which were written for a popular audience, he placed this as the grounding principle. Yet, the question lingers, ‘how do we know this God?’ This question logically follows from the proclamation that God is our highest good. ‘Who or what is this God which is our highest good?’ To know this God, he must reveal himself. For there to be even a rudimentary knowledge of God, revelation is necessary. God must reveal himself to the world for people to know him. The subsequent six chapters of Magnalia Dei and the following three of Handleiding engage with the issue of revelation. In Reformed Dogmatics, his work written as a scientific account of dogmatic theology, he argued that God reveals himself most basically through the outside world. ‘Now the fact that the world is the theater of God’s self-​revelation can hardly be denied’.15 Bavinck’s point was that God must reveal himself for a person to have any knowledge of him. All spheres of human experience—​ nature, history, the inner psychological life of a person—​are a revelation of God.16 No one thing in the universe reveals the ‘infinite fullness of power and life’ which is in God.17 Bavinck was aware that the nineteenth century had produced a movement which focused revelation principally in Christ and either de-​emphasized or denied any sort of revelation in the created order. This trend can be seen in Schleiermacher’s Christian Faith where he affirmed that in a special sense Christ is the revelation of God.18 Even though Bavinck 14 Herman Bavinck, Magnalia Dei: Onderwijzing in de Christelijke Religie naar Gereformeerde Belijdenis, 2nd ed. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1931), 9; Handleiding, 1. Dutch: Des menschen hoogste goed, is God, en God alleen. Bavinck made this same assertion, but not as strong in Reformed Dogmatics. When he stated: ‘Kant is correctly called the philosopher of Protestantism insofar as he saw that it is the moral will, without which the highest good cannot be conceived, through whose activation alone the road leads to God and to knowing God’ (RD1, 39; GD1, 14–​15). As Bavinck continued in RD1, he then laid out his prolegomena showing how one is to know this God whom in knowing is the highest good. 15 Bavinck, RD2, 56; GD2, 27. 16 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 24. 17 Bavinck, RD2, 56; GD2, 27. 18 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith: A New Translation and Critical Edition, eds. Catherine Kelsey and Terrence Tice, trans. Terrence Tice, Catherine Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), §13, 93–​102; Albrecht Ritschl, Unterrricht in der Christlichen Religion, 6th ed. (Bonn: A. Marcus, 1903), §20ff; Adolf von Harnack, What is Christianity?, trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders, 5th ed. (London: Ernest Benn, 1958), lecture 2.

102  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck would acknowledge Christ as the centre (middenpunt) of revelation, Christ did not stand as the sole source of revelation but ‘in its [revelation] periphery extends to the uttermost ends of creation’.19 However, while revelation is more than Christ, as Bavinck understood it, all revelation bears a distinctly Christological shape. Both general and special revelation find their grounding in the Logos. General revelation is due to the Word, that in the beginning was with God, who made all things, shines a light in the darkness, and comes into the world giving light to everyone (John 1:1–​9). Special revelation owes to the same Word, but that Word has become flesh in Christ, and now is full of grace and truth (John 1:14).20

Revelation is God’s self-​revelation. The Logos plays this foundational role in revelation because, in Bavinck’s account, revelation principally is the embodiment of the divine idea and will.21 ‘Creation and re-​creation are acts of God in time, but at the same time they are the embodiment of his eternal counsel’.22 In the incarnation the Logos takes on flesh. ‘The Logos himself does not merely become a human (ἀνθρωπος) but a servant (δουλος), flesh (σαρξ). And the word of revelation similarly assumes the imperfect and inadequate form of Scripture’. For Bavinck, Scripture, like Christ, ‘is the servant form of revelation’.23 Pass notes that lying behind this use of the doctrine of divine ideas is Bavinck’s attempt to counter Kant. ‘Like the first generation of post-​Kantian 19 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 24. 20 Bavinck, Handleiding bij het Onderwijs in den Christelijken Godsdienst, 11. Dutch: De algemeen openbaring is te danken aan het Woord, dat in den beginner bij God was, dat alle dingen heeft gemaakt, data ls een licht in de duisternis heeft geschenen en, komende in de wereld, iederen mensch verlicht, Joh. 1:1–​9. De bijzondere openbaring is aan hetzelfde Woord te danken, maar aan dat Woord, gelijk het vleesch geworden is in Christus, en nu vol is van genade en waarheid, Joh. 1:14. 21 Eugene Heideman, The Relation of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959), 137. 22 Herman Bavinck, Christian Worldview, eds. and trans. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, James Eglinton, and Cory Brock (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 54; Christelijke wereldbeschouwing: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20 october 1904 (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1904), 30. 23 Bavinck, RD1, 380; GD1, 352; Rolf Bremmer, Bavinck als dogmaticus (Kampen: Kok, 1961), 169; S. Meijers, Objectiviteit en existentialiteit: een onderzoek naar hun verhouding in de theologie van Herman Bavinck en in door hem beïnvloede concepties (Kampen: Kok, 1979), 73; Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek: Schriftbeschouwing en Schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2003), 112; Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 258; Jan Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie. De openbarings-​en schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die van de ethische theologie (Amsterdam: Buijten and Schipperheijn, 1968), 420–​421, 443.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  103 Idealists, Bavinck was attracted to Neoplatonism for the potential it held for bridging the gulf Kant’s first Critique had opened between the real and ideal. . . . The doctrine of divine ideas thus furnished Bavinck with both a means of maintaining an absolute distinction between God and the world and a means of bridging the epistemological gulf between the ideal and the real’.24 The metaphor of embodiment moves the critique a step forward by showing that written language is one particular embodied form of divine ideas. ‘But just as the thought embodies itself in a word, so words are embodied in scripture. And language itself is no more than a body of signs, audible signs. . . . The written word is the incarnation [ενσαρκωσις] of the [spoken] word’.25 It is the σαρξ nature of Scripture that ties it back to the Logos who too is ενσαρκωσις. Bavinck’s understanding of inspiration wherein he sees an analogy between incarnation and inscripturation is brought together in what he calls ‘organic inspiration’.26 Because Scripture is both a truly divine work and a truly human work Bavinck attempted to nuance his doctrine of Scripture to give him space to not only affirm the truthfulness of Scripture but also harmonize it with historical research that created apparent contradictions.27 Thus, while Bavinck could implicitly affirm ‘infallibility’ as it was confessed in Article 5 of the Belgic Confession, he avoided the language of ‘infallibility’ and ‘inerrancy’ in his writing.28 Thus, what Bavinck argued is that revelation is Christologically determined.29 Christ is the middle point of revelation, all else flows out from him. He is the Logos ενσαρκωσις. As the middle point, the Logos is the lens through which we read and understand revelation. Revelation is inherently Christological. ‘It is the product of God’s incarnation in Christ and in a sense its continuation, the way by which Christ makes his home in the church, the preparation of the way to the full indwelling of God [de praeparatio viae ad plenam inhabitationem Dei]’.30 The revelation of God from the start, for 24 Bruce Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics: Christology and Christocentrism in Herman Bavinck (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 61. 25 Bavinck, RD1, 377–​378; GD1, 349. 26 Bavinck, RD1, 431; GD1, 401. 27 Koert van Bekkum ‘Herman Bavinck’s Use of Scripture’ in Herman Bavinck: Centenary Essays, ed. Bruce Pass (Leiden: Brill, Forthcoming). 28 Bruce Pass, ‘Upholding Sola Scriptura Today: Some Unturned Stones in Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of Inspiration’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 20:4 (2018), 525–​527. 29 Pass notes that there is much secondary literature that picks up on this incarnational analogy with Scripture. Many times, it is for the apologetic value of it. This model can be a used as a form of a hermeneutical road map for navigating some of the more difficult passages. See: Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 133–​138. 30 Bavinck, RD1, 380–​381; GD1, 352.

104  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Bavinck, bears a Christological character. The incarnation is a determinative feature for reading Scripture. Thus, implicitly the nature of the Logos and the Logos’ relationship to the nature of Scripture implies that an essential attribute of revelation is that it is inherently Trinitarian. The Father eternally speaks the Word through the Spirit’s inspiration of prophets and apostles; that Word is inscripturated and, thus, becomes ενσαρκωσις. As such, Bavinck wrote, ‘it [revelation] has become flesh and blood, like us in all things except sin’.31 While the incarnation of the Son is determinative for the shape of revelation, in Bavinck’s estimation, this is an analogy or model not an ontological claim. Indeed, Bavinck asserted, ‘the incarnation, leads to Scripture’.32 Nevertheless, even while Bavinck argued for the Christological influence and Trinitarian structure to revelation, in his view there is no singular moment within God’s self-​revelation in which the doctrine of the Trinity is dramatically revealed. That is to say, there is no one moment when God declares, ‘I am Triune’. Instead it is a gradual outworking of revelation over a long history.33 Bavinck’s aim, however, was to demonstrate the Trinitarian shape of revelation which was formed and fashioned through a Christological prism. To this end, he asserted that God is most perfectly revealed in Christ: ‘The knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ, his Son, is eternal life’.34 For the present purpose, it is important to note how Bavinck here linked Trinitarian theology and soteriology. Redemption and revelation form a strong connection to each other which leads to Trinitarian theology. These two, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of eternal salvation of the soul form not two independent parts which have nothing to do with each other but they are inseparably bound; the doctrine of God is at the same time a doctrine of eternal salvation of souls and the latter of these once again implies the former.35

31 Bavinck, RD1, 443; GD1, 414. 32 Bavinck, RD1, 380; GD1, 352. 33 Herman Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 130. 34 Ibid., 115. Dutch: De kennis Gods in het aangezicht van Jesus Christus, zijnen Zoon, is het eeuwige leven, Joh. 17:3. 35 Ibid., 115. Dutch: Deze twee, de leer van God en de leer van de eeuwige zaligheid der zielen, vormen geen twee zelfstandige stukken, die niets met elkander te maken hebben, maar zij zijn onafscheidelijk verbonden; de leer van God is tevens eene leer van de eeuwige zaligheid der zielen en deze laaste sluit wederom de eerste in.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  105 For Bavinck, there was an intertwining of the doctrines of revelation, redemption, and the Trinity.36 Revelation and redemption bear a distinctly Trinitarian shape. As Bavinck developed it, the doctrine of God determines the doctrine of revelation.37 As a painter exists before she paints and the painting reveals something of who she is, so, for Bavinck, God exists before creation and his creation reveals him because it bears his imprint as Creator. The doctrine of the Trinity would not have grown and developed within a doctrine of revelation that was not already conditioned by the reality of the Trinity. Reality comes first, understanding follows. Thus, for Bavinck, revelation and redemption must find their roots in the Trinity. Revelation and redemption reveal the triunity of God. It is from this then that the theologian is able to develop Trinitarian theology. Bavinck showed this most strikingly in his treatment of the Trinity in Reformed Dogmatics. He opened this chapter with an examination of the names of God as found in the Old Testament. These Old Testament names, Bavinck contended, function as the seeds which germinate into full maturity when taken in the context of all of Scripture.38 The Old Testament conveys only an inexplicit indication of God’s trinitarian existence: it is [the first part of] the record of the gradually unfolding doctrine of the Trinity. Still, the Old Testament contains—​not just in a few isolated texts but especially in the organism of its revelation as a whole—​ components that are of the highest significance for the doctrine of the Trinity.39

While Bavinck was clear that Trinitarian theology is principally founded on the witness of divine revelation as it is objectively laid out in the Scripture, he

36 This brings up an interesting contrast between Bavinck and Schleiermacher. Whereas for Schleiermacher redemption in Christ functions as the proverbial key on a map (that thing by which all else is understood), for Bavinck redemption and revelation working together rooted Trinitarian theology and Trinitarian theology is the key to the map. 37 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 24. 38 Van Bekkum has noted the way that Bavinck cites Scripture in his writing demonstrates this understanding. According to van Bekkum, Bavinck was ‘listing words, creating semantic fields and organizing them, if possible, according to biblical books and genres or placing them in a historical order, Bavinck tries to make the reader familiar with the biblical mentality of ancient Israel and early Christianity, and with the concepts that were developed in accord with the history of revelation’. What results is not proof texts divorced from context but biblical theology which is developed through redemptive history undergirding a systematic theology. See: van Bekkum, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Use of Scripture’. 39 Bavinck, RD2, 261; GD2, 226.

106  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck was also conscious that the Trinity is a mystery, arguably the chief mystery, of Scripture. However, it is a mystery that is now revealed. This concept of mystery is not uniquely applied to Trinitarian theology in Bavinck but plays an important role in all his theology. Pass has suggested that one could even call it a leitmotif for Bavinck, counting as many as thirty-​one times that Bavinck used ‘mystery’ to describe different aspects of Christian theology.40 The role of mystery is highlighted even more when Bavinck declared mystery to be ‘the lifeblood of dogmatics’.41 The Trinity is listed among the many mysteries that Bavinck found in dogmatics.42 However, in calling the Trinity a mystery, Bavinck was not saying that the Trinity cannot be known. Instead, his ascription of the mystery to the Trinity is in line with many in the Christian tradition, not least of whom are Augustine and Calvin. Speaking on the Trinity, Calvin stated, ‘Again Scripture sets forth a distinction of the Father from the Word, and the Word from the Spirit. Yet the greatness of the mystery warns us how much reverence and sobriety we ought to use in investigating this’.43 Then again when speaking of Augustine and the Trinity, he argued that, ‘Indeed, it is far safer to stop with the relation which Augustine sets forth than by too subtly penetrate, into the sublime mystery to wander through many evanescent speculations’.44 For Calvin and Bavinck, mystery does not mean that God cannot be known, it means that the revelation of God is beyond our ability to fully comprehend. Mystery in Bavinck, therefore, is tied to the incomprehensibility of God. The theologian can apprehend but will never comprehend God. Knowledge of God is necessarily a meditated knowledge of God. ‘And hence people have no knowledge, no matter how small, of the Divine being, except through the Word, that which was in the beginning with God and is himself God’.45 If humanity were to gain knowledge of God any other way, it ‘would be the deification of humanity and the erasure of the boundary between the Creator and the creature’.46 Thus, for Bavinck, it is the incomprehensibility of God that allowed him to describe mystery as the ‘lifeblood of dogmatics’. 40 Pass, The Heart of Dogmatics, 58–​59. 41 Bavinck, RD2, 29; GD2, 1. 42 Bavinck, RD4, 452; GD4, 431. 43 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), I.XIII.17, 141. 44 Ibid., I.XIII.19, 144. 45 Herman Bavinck, ‘Kennis en Leven’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 209. Dutch: En daarom is er in menschen geen kennis, hoe gering ook, van het Goddelijk wezen, dan door het Woord, dat in den beginne bij God en zelf God was. 46 Bavinck, RD2, 190; GD2, 157.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  107 Although knowledge is attainable in theology, this is not true of comprehension. . . . The farther a science penetrates its object, the more it approaches mystery. Even if on its journey it encountered no other object it would still always be faced with the mystery of being. Where comprehension ceases, however, there remains room for knowledge and wonder. And so things stand in theology. Disclosed to us in revelation is ‘the mystery of our religion’ [μυστηριον ευσεβειας]: the mystery of God’s grace [1 Tim. 3:16]. We see it; it comes out to meet us as a reality in history and in our own life. But we do not fathom it. In that sense Christian theology always has to do with mysteries that it knows and marvels at but does not comprehend and fathom.47

In Bavinck’s eyes, mystery is what animates Christian dogmatics. This is why it was not a dead end for him to declare that the Trinity is a mystery. Bavinck could affirm this and at the same time argue that it is a mystery which was once concealed but is now revealed. The revelation of this mystery, however, is unlike other doctrines of God, which are clearly laid out. One need only consider the doctrine of the divine perfections and find what can be considered glosses for the name of God.48 The revelation of the mystery of the doctrine of the Trinity is only faintly seen.49 This, however, does not mean that it is not present.50 While this doctrine is a mystery, Bavinck also understood that this doctrine is in a sense more revealed than most.51 At its foundational level, revelation is not solely a propositional announcement of doctrines but the unveiling of the Logos who was once hidden but is now revealed; that revelation being subjectively disclosed through the Spirit.52 The very structure of the doctrine of revelation presupposes the Trinity. Bavinck’s theological methodology makes this even clearer. As was seen in previous chapters, the Son and the Spirit are principia in Bavinck’s theological method. By giving his theological methodology a Trinitarian structure, Bavinck made the doctrine of God a governor of all other doctrines and particularly the doctrine of revelation. While God is revealed in revelation, for



47 Bavinck, RD1, 619; GD1, 588–​598. 48 See: Ex 34:6–​7.

49 Bavinck, RD2, 279 (cf. GD2, 282); cf. Magnalia Dei, 130. 50 Bavinck, RD2, 279 (cf. GD2, 282); cf. Handleiding, 61. 51 Bavinck, RD2, 29; GD2, 1–​2.

52 Bavinck, RD2, 262; GD2, 227.

108  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Bavinck, the doctrine of God is not bound or constrained by the doctrine of revelation. Revelation is normed by God. So then, the knowledge of God is the only dogma, the exclusive content, of the entire field of dogmatics. All the doctrines treated in dogmatics—​ whether they concern the universe, humanity, Christ, and so forth—​are but the explication of the one central dogma of the knowledge of God. All things are considered in light of God, subsumed under him, traced back to him as the starting point. Dogmatics is always called upon to ponder and describe God and God alone, whose glory is in creation and re-​creation, in nature and grace, in the world and in the church. It is the knowledge of him alone that dogmatics must put on display.53

Thus, for Bavinck, even the doctrine of revelation is conditioned by the doctrine of God. Scripture is the principia cognoscendi externum of the doctrine of God, but the doctrine of God provides the material content for the formalizing of a doctrine of revelation. ‘The Trinity in the revelation of God points back to the Trinity in his existence’.54 Seeing the doctrine of God as a controlling doctrine helps to reconcile what seem to be contradictory claims. Using the language of nineteenth-​ century German theology, Bavinck called both the doctrine of the knowledge of God and Christology centrale dogmas.55 However, in understanding 53 Bavinck, RD2, 29; GD2, 2. 54 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 130. Dutch: De drieëenheid in de openbaring Gods wijst op de drieëenheid in zijn bestaan terug. 55 For the doctrine of the knowledge of God as the central dogma see: Herman Bavinck, RD2, 29; GD2, 1. For Christology as the central dogma see: Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, eds. Cameron D. Clausing and Gregory Parker Jr. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2019), 42–​43. Others have identified other ‘central dogmas’ in Bavinck. Michael Allen has maintained that there is no central dogma in Bavinck’s work; see: Michael Allen, ‘Dogmatics as ascestics’ in The Task of Dogmatics: Explorations in Theological Method, eds. Oliver Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 204. Anthony Hoekema has identified the covenant of grace; see: Anthony Hoekema, Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of the Covenant (Clover: Full Bible Publications, 2007), 57, 198, 214. Sydney Hielema has noted certain salvation historical themes; see: Sydney Hielema, Herman Bavinck’s Eschatological Understanding of Redemption (ThD thesis, Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology, 1998), 246, 286–​288. Eugene Heideman, Jan Veenhof, and John Bolt have all identified the ‘grace restores nature’ motif as the central dogma. See: Heideman, Revelation and Reason, 196; Veenhof, Revelatie en inspiratie: De openbarings, 355; John Bolt, The Imitation of Christ Theme in the Cultural-​Ethical Ideal of Herman Bavinck (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2013), 155). Ronald Gleason has assigned the unio mystica the central place in Bavinck’s system. See: Ronald Gleason, The Centrality of the Unio Mystica in the Theology of Herman Bavinck (PhD dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001), 4–​46). Finally, Brian Mattson argues for a synthetic position on the question of a centre noting agreement with Bolt, Heideman, and Veenhof; see: Brian Mattson, Restored to Our Destiny: Eschatology and the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 3, 20, 237.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  109 the doctrine of God (i.e., God’s triunity) as the controlling doctrine, we are able to bring together these two seemingly mutually exclusive concepts. In an 1891 response to a lecture by François Daubanton, Bavinck engaged with the relationship between Scripture, church tradition, and individual Christian experience. This was written early in Bavinck’s theological development with the first edition of the Reformed Dogmatics being prepared and published four years later. In his response, published in Theologische studiën, Bavinck said of Scripture and the older orthodox theology ‘That knowledge, which God revealed of himself, was the midpoint and organic principle of the whole of dogmatics’.56 As Bavinck’s career developed, so did his thinking on the centre of his system. We have already seen above that in volume two of Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck called the doctrine of the knowledge of God the central dogma. However, in the following volume of the same work Bavinck referred to Christology stating, ‘The doctrine of Christ is not the starting point [uitgangspunt], but it certainly is the central point [middelpunt] of the whole system of dogmatics. All other dogmas prepare for it or are derived from it’.57 Here we perceive what could be understood as a shift in Bavinck’s thought. It would appear that Bavinck moved Christology closer to the centre of his system. The claims made here would seem to point in the direction of an inconsistency at worst or an unresolved tension at best within Bavinck’s thought. Perhaps more charitably one could argue a change from one central dogma to another with sloppy scholarship which left ‘the doctrine of the knowledge of God’ as the centrale dogma of volume two of Reformed Dogmatics and Christology as the true centrale dogma. Yet, it seems an alternative reading would be one in which Bavinck’s thought is not inconsistent or that there is even a radical shift, so much as a gradual development in his thoughts on the topic. It could be argued that Bavinck did not see moving from the doctrine of the knowledge of God to Christology as a significant shift in centrale dogmas as much as a more careful understanding and articulation of the same central dogma.58 Following his move from Kampen to Amsterdam to work at the Free University, Bavinck spent a decade revising the whole of the

56 Herman Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, Theologische Studiën 9 (1891), 274. Dutch: Die kennis, door God van zichzelven in natuur en Schrift geopenbaard, was het middelpunt en het organisch beginsel der gansche dogmatiek. 57 Bavinck, RD3, 274; GD3, 254. 58 This position is made even stronger by the argument from silence. I am unable to locate a point where Bavinck acknowledges that his position has actually changed.

110  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Reformed Dogmatics.59 In this revision he added approximately 800 pages of extra content, and as such, whatever stayed in the second edition was done so deliberately. Therefore, it would seem that what Bavinck did was advocate for a more robustly Trinitarian perspective when considering the doctrine of the knowledge of God. One can see this with Bavinck’s assertion that the essence of Christianity ‘is no more than determining and maintaining the place that, according to his own witness, belongs to Christ’.60 When Bavinck’s thoughts on revelation, Christology, and the Trinity are brought together, one can see that rather than a radical shift concerning central dogmas, Bavinck was making his thinking, and articulation of that thinking, more precise. If Bavinck’s thought is followed, it is possible to see how Bavinck tied these things together through commentary on the essence of Christianity. In Reformed Dogmatics volume one he said that the essence of Christianity is ‘the deity of Christ’.61 However, building on this Bavinck developed his thought in volume two saying, ‘The essence of Christianity—​the absolute self-​revelation of God in the person of Christ and the absolute self-​ communication of God in the Holy Spirit—​could only be maintained, the church believed, if it had its foundation and first principle in the ontological Trinity’.62 As Bavinck’s thought developed he considered a closer connection between the doctrine of the knowledge of God, Christology, and the doctrine of the Trinity. In the essay ‘The Essence of Christianity’ he said: If we consider this and work it out, then Christianity, finally appears to the eyes of our souls in all its beauty and glory. Christianity is no less than the real, supreme work of the Triune God, in which the Father reconciles his created but fallen world through the death of his Son and re-​creates it through his Spirit into the kingdom of God.63

For Bavinck, there seems to be a close connection between the ‘essence of Christianity’ and a ‘central dogma’ to Christianity. In all these cases he

59 Cf. pp. 4–​5. 60 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Essence of Christianity’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 47; ‘Het wezen des christendoms’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921), 34. 61 Bavinck, RD1, 128; GD1, 104. 62 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 262. Cf. Herman Bavinck, Het Christendom (Baarn: Hollandia, 1912), 22. 63 Bavinck, ‘The Essence of Christianity’, 47; ‘Het wezen’, 34.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  111 linked Christology, revelation, and the Trinity. Thus, in seeing Christology as flowing out of the Triune life and revelation bearing a Triune mark, one no longer has to choose between the ‘doctrine of the knowledge of God’ or Christology as mutually exclusive central dogmas. It is possible to consider them as two sides of the same coin. Instead of arguing for a shift in Bavinck’s focus, one can assert a focusing of Bavinck’s thought so that the ‘doctrine of knowledge of God’ remains the central dogma. However, it is the ‘doctrine of the knowledge of God’ as seen in the face of Christ because all revelation flows out of and is formed by the Logos.64 From these observations of the essential attributes of revelation, Bavinck made a distinction between word and deed. Revelation’s locus is neither found exclusively in the acts of God nor solely in the words of God. This distinction played itself out in the relationship Bavinck saw between Scripture and revelation. Revelation is not co-​terminous with Scripture. There is a distinction between the revelatory ‘acts’ of God and that which is inscripturated (i.e., the Scriptural record of those acts). ‘Scripture, therefore is not revelation itself, but the representation, the declaration from which revelation can be known’.65 This separation of word and act is reminiscent of various theological trajectories coming out of nineteenthcentury German theology. Indeed, Bavinck recognized this as characteristic of German theology. Commenting on the theology of Albrecht Ritschl, Bavinck stated that for Ritschl: Knowledge of things always depends on the impression they make on us; we do not know things as they are in themselves but only as they manifest themselves to us and exist in relation to us. The question is never about what is true in itself but only what is true for us. Divine revelation therefore is limited to what a worldview and the self-​judgment that answers to it gives to us, namely, the certainty of salvation.66

64 Pass appears to set these two claims by Bavinck up as mutually exclusive zero-​sum games. However, this reading would be able to reconcile the two central dogmas without needing to choose between the two different claims to central dogma. While this new reading doesn’t substantially alter Pass’ basic thesis, that Christology lies at the heart of Bavinck’s dogmatic system, it does allow for a more precise reading of Bavinck’s development on the issue of central dogma. See: Pass, Heart of Dogmatics, 37–​47. 65 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 83. Dutch: De Schrift is dus niet de openbaring zelve, maar de beschrijving, de oordkonde, waaruit de openbaring gekend kan worden. 66 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl’, trans. John Bolt, The Bavinck Review 3 (2012), 158; ‘De Theologie van Albrecht Ritschl’, , 398.

112  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck While Bavinck betrays a post-​Enlightenment context in drawing the distinction between ‘acts’ and ‘word,’ he was careful not to so uncouple them as to have them separated and segregated.67 Bavinck understood that an adequate view of revelation required both ‘deed’ and ‘word’. Revelation needs revelatory acts that happen in history and revelatory words to fulfill and record those deeds. ‘Christianity is itself history’.68 Bavinck had in his purview two equal and opposite threats to the doctrine of God, both of them stemming from an insufficient doctrine of revelation. On the one hand, he was responding to a view of revelation that had overemphasized the ‘propositional’ (i.e., words) aspect of revelation and did not recognize revelatory acts. On the other hand, he was concerned about an overemphasis on the revelatory acts which undervalued revelatory words.69 Both of these led to separate but, he believed, equally dangerous results. Bavinck’s constant concern for holism, organic unity, non-​reductionism is seen in this. Ultimately this is bound up in his interest in the catholicity of Christianity. Bavinck took pains to demonstrate the capacious character of Christianity in its ability to address and reunite all of life. ‘Word and fact are so tightly interwoven in revelation that the one cannot be accepted or rejected without the other’.70 Bavinck was suspicious of the modern tendency to separate word and deed, revelation and redemption. ‘The question of why that revelation has not been granted to every human is really not appropriate. It assumes that the Christian revelation contains only doctrine and forgets that it is and has to be history’.71 The revelatory acts of God have value and are meaningful as they really do accomplish something in time and space. However, for Bavinck, the goal of revelation is to reveal God and have that personally applied to the consciousness of individual people. ‘The aim of theology, after all, can be no other than that the rational creature know God and, knowing him, glorify God (Prov. 16:4; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 3:17)’.72 For this to be accomplished, revelatory deed must be accompanied by revelatory word.73 Bavinck’s doctrine of revelation pairs divine words and deeds together, making them dependent on each other. Nevertheless, it seems like there is a

67 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 83.

68 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 115. 69 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 83.

70 Bavinck, RD1, 366; GD1, 336. 71 Bavinck, RD1, 379; GD1, 351. 72 Bavinck, RD1, 213; GD1, 184. 73 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 94.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  113 possibility for expansion in his thought on the role of words. Words appear to function as a supplement to Bavinck’s conception of revelation. This is not to say that he has not placed great weight on revelatory words. Their role in the economy of revelation is that of ‘data’ for the construction of Trinitarian theology.74 For Bavinck, the connection between deed and word is one of fulfillment, record, and in some cases direct speech from God (i.e., the ‘thus saith the Lord’ moments in Scripture).75 However, what seems like a better way to approach the deed–​word question in revelation is an act–​interpretation argument. That is, Christian revelation comes both in historical deeds and in revelatory words by which to interpret those historical deeds.76 However, this critique notwithstanding, Bavinck’s acknowledgment of the importance of revelatory act and revelatory word coupled together responded to the trend of considering revelation solely as deed which was in the ascendency in his day, and that continued into the twentieth century. For Bavinck, the Trinity is a mystery. However, it is not one mystery among many, but it is the mystery par excellence in Scripture. It is a mystery that was once concealed but is now revealed. It is a mystery that not only concerns the identity of God but also the entirety of redemptive history—​that mystery being that God has always existed as a Trinity in unity and unity in Trinity was once a concealed reality but is a revealed reality. In Bavinck’s view, the triune nature of God determined the shape in which this reality was revealed to the world. The first danger when considering revelation, he thought, was to have an underdeveloped doctrine of revelation focusing on revelatory deeds unconnected from revelatory words. Nevertheless, it was a unity of revelatory deed coupled with revelatory word that was necessary for the development of Trinitarian theology. Therefore, I have argued here that, for Bavinck, all revelation is chiefly oriented toward revealing the Trinity and, thus, Christologically determined and Triune in structure. The next section turns to the second danger Bavinck saw in developing Trinitarian theology from Scripture, ignoring the communicative aspect of the missions of the Son and the Spirit. These build on each other to construct the larger argument of this chapter; principally that in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned

74 Bavinck, RD2, 279; cf. GD2, 245–​246. 75 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 84–​87. 76 J. Gresham Machen a generation later would say, ‘ “Christ died” is history, “for our sins” is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity’. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York: Macmillan, 1923), 27.

114  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Scripture as the foundation of this Trinitarian theology even while his conception of revelation maintained a Trinitarian structure.

Revelation: The Triune God Speaking The danger Bavinck saw in modern theological discourse was an emphasizing of revelatory acts over and against revelatory words. However, Bavinck recognized an equal danger, the valuing of revelatory words at the expense of revelatory acts. The earlier theology almost completely allowed revelation to coincide with divine inspiration (θεοπνευστια), the gift of Scripture. It only incidentally referred to revelation and conceived of it much too narrowly. It seemed as if there was nothing behind Scripture. As a result Scripture came to stand in complete detachment and isolation and made it seem as if it had suddenly dropped out of heaven.77

This vision of a version of mere propositionalism was problematic for Bavinck. The reason for this was that, as Bavinck saw it, mere propositionalism ends in ‘orthodox intellectualism,’78 which he understood to be a reduction of faith to a belief in information, with revelation becoming nothing more than information for information’s sake.79 It is clear from what we have seen above that propositional truth or revelatory words are not problematic for Bavinck. He understood the Scripture as a collection of revelatory words which also contain propositional truth claims. The error identified by Bavinck was a privileging of either revelatory words or revelatory deeds. It was the setting of one against the other. In Bavinck’s view, neither word nor deed is epiphenomenal. The doctrine of God and the doctrine of revelation are interrelated. Thus, the deeds of God bespeak the revelation of God. The missions of the Son and the Spirit function as the supreme communicative acts of God in Bavinck’s scheme. God more perfectly reveals himself in the incarnation of the Son and communicates himself supremely in the outpouring of the Spirit.80 In relation to the Son, Bavinck stated, ‘For 77 Bavinck, RD1, 381; GD1, 352. 78 Bavinck, RD1, 382; GD1, 354. 79 For Bavinck, Ritschl was a paradigmatic example of a person who placed revelatory deeds over and against revelatory words. 80 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 163.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  115 God to beget is to speak, and his speaking is eternal. God’s offspring is eternal [Θεου αίδιον το γεννημα]’.81 Likewise of the Spirit: ‘For the rest, however, theology was modest in describing spiration. Like “generation”, it has to be conceived as the eternal communication of the same essence’.82 It is true that Christ is the midpoint or centre of revelation for Bavinck.83 However, revelation also bears a distinctly Trinitarian character. Thus, as Bavinck understood it, revelation ‘always goes out freely from God himself ’.84 Bavinck’s point here is that revelation is a free act from God. However, he also made an implicit point about the essential nature of revelation. This is an implicit point which he made explicit next, in stating that ‘all revelation from God is self-​revelation’.85 Eglinton is correct in his reading of Bavinck’s doctrine of revelation on this point: it is in ‘alignment with his broader worldview that all things begin and end with the glory of the Triune God’.86 Thus, while the incarnation is where the Father perfectly reveals himself in the Son, the outpouring of the Spirit also functions as a necessary corollary. In both incarnation and Pentecost, God reveals himself as Triune: Father, Son, and Spirit.87 Therefore, Bavinck could argue that in the missions of the Son and the Spirit, the union of word and deed becomes inseparable.88 God does not reveal abstract notions of himself, but becomes flesh and indwells people. As Bavinck constructed his understanding of revelation and Trinitarian theology, the testimony of the Son and the Spirit is that one divine name speaks through three distinct persons.89 On account of this, Bavinck argued that the Trinity is revealed when the Father sent the Son, and the Father and Son sent the Spirit. The mystery that was once hidden in ages past is now revealed. All of this comes together once more to show how Bavinck understood the inseparability of the doctrines of redemption and revelation. These two doctrines go hand in hand. For Bavinck, revelation presupposes a Triune God and that Triune God perfectly reveals himself as Triune in his redemptive acts, principally in the incarnation and Pentecost. ‘The purpose of God’s revelation, according to Scripture, 81 Bavinck, RD2, 310; GD2, 277. 82 Bavinck, RD2, 312; GD2, 280. 83 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 24. 84 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 25. Dutch: Ten eerste gaat zij steeds vrij van God zelven uit. 85 Ibid., 26. Dutch: In de tweede plaats is alle openbaring, welke van God uitgaat, zelfopenbaring. 86 James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a new Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 138. 87 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 234. 88 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 235. 89 Bavinck, RD2, 270; GD2, 236.

116  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck is precisely that human beings may know God and so receive eternal life (John 17:3; 20:31)’.90 In the mission of the Son, the Father is revealed.91 The mission of the Spirit is to testify to and glorify the Son.92 They speak this revelation because they have been communicating themselves to each other from all eternity. ‘Religion can be satisfied with nothing less than God himself. Now in Christ God himself comes out to us, and in the Holy Spirit he communicates himself to us’.93 For Bavinck, then, it would appear that the key to understanding the Trinitarian shape of revelation is to understand God as essentially communicative.94 From eternity past, God has spoken. This speech is intra-​Trinitarian and flows between the members of the Godhead. As Bavinck explained it, if the persons of the Trinity are not communicating among themselves, then God cannot communicate himself to humanity. The dogma of the Trinity, by contrast, tells us that God can reveal himself in an absolute sense to the Son and the Spirit, and hence, in a relative sense also to the world. For, as Augustine teaches us, the self-​communication that takes place within the divine being is archetypal for God’s work in creation.95

It is this speech among the members of the Godhead that is realised in time and space in salvation history. For Bavinck, it can rightly be said that, at least in part, the speech among the persons of the Godhead is speech about humanity. That is, the eternal Triune conversation bears a characteristic that is experienced in the salvation of humanity.96 90 Bavinck, GD2, 3; RD2, 30. Dutch: Doel van de openbaring Gods is volgens de Schrift juist, dat de mensch God leere kennen en daardoor het eeuwige leven ontvange (Joh 17:3, 20:31). 91 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 135. 92 Ibid., 138. 93 Bavinck, RD2, 333–​334; GD2, 301. 94 William Schweitzer makes a similar point regarding Jonathan Edwards. See: William Schweitzer, God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (London: T&T Clark, 2012). 95 Bavinck, RD2, 333; GD2, 300. 96 Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, 7–​14. At this point, one could make a Barthian critique of Bavinck’s contention that God is primarily concerned with humans. For Barth, God is primordially concerned with Jesus of Nazareth and the people who he represents are a secondary consequence of that focus on Jesus. Barth’s contention is that God’s election of Jesus of Nazareth belongs to the very being of God. Barth argued, ‘God is none other than the One who in His Son or Word elects Himself, in and with Himself elects His people’. See: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds. G.W. Bromily and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromiley, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark: 1957), II.2, 76. Thus, as Nimmo states, ‘God would not be God without this act of election: it represents a divine self-​determination’. Paul Nimmo, Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 65.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  117 Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind what has been noted above the revelation of the Trinity ‘did not occur in and through a single formula, rather it had a long historical progression and expanded over centuries’.97 In a sense, Bavinck would agree with Charles Gore in stating, ‘It [the doctrine of the Trinity] was overheard, rather than heard’.98 This ‘overhearing’ of the doctrine took place in the Son’s mission of proclaiming the Father.99 It is also seen in how the Spirit testifies to the Son and the Father.100 Bavinck argued that it was only personal knowledge that could lead to the interpersonal speech which resulted in Trinitarian theology.101 The relationship in which Christ stands to the Father fully corresponds to that which the Holy Spirit stands to Christ. As the Son says and does nothing of himself, but receives everything from the Father (John 5:26; 16:15), so the Holy Spirit takes everything from Christ (John 16:13, 14). As the Son bears witness and glorifies the Father (John 1:18; 17:46), so the Holy Spirit bears witness and glorifies the Son (John 15:26; 16:14). As no one comes to the Father except through the Son (John 14:6), so no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). Through the Spirit we have communion with the Father and the Son. In the Holy Spirit God himself through Christ lives in our hearts. If all of this is the case, then the Holy Spirit with the Son and the Father is the one, true God, eternally to glorify and to praise.102 Nevertheless, Bavinck’s point is not one of election but one of revelation. While Bavinck would not maintain Barth’s view of election, it seems that they would make similar arguments surrounding revelation. The actual revelation of the Trinity is in the coming of the Son and the Spirit. The Scriptural witness to this revelation is the authoritative account, but the revelation and subsequent knowledge of God as Triune is in the Father’s sending of the Son and the Father and Son’s sending of the Spirit. For Bavinck, the missions ad extra find their foundation in the processions ad intra. For Bavinck election is not a work ad intra, but flows out of the life ad intra of the Triune God. 97 Bavinck, Handleiding, 61. Dutch: Ook deze openbaring toch is niet in eens en door afkondiging van een formule geschied, maar zij had een long historisch verloop en breidde zich over eeuwen uit; dat God bestaat al Vader, Zoon en Geest, dat werd nog eerder en duidelijker in Gods werken dan in zijne woorden openbaar. 98 Charles Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God (London: Murray, 1891), 131. 99 Bavinck, Handleiding, 66. 100 Ibid., 71. 101 Ibid., 72. 102 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 139: Met de verhouding, waarin Christus tot den Vader staat, komt ten volle overeen die, waarin de H. Geest staat tot Christus. Gelijk de Zoon niets spreekt en niets doet van zichzelven, maar alles ontvangt van den Vader, Joh. 5:26, 16:15, zoo neemt de H. Geest alles uit Christus, Joh. 16:13, 14. Gelijk de Zoon van de Vader getuigt en den Vader verheerlijkt, Joh. 1:18, 17:4, 6, zoo getuigt de H. Geest van den Zoon en verheerlijkt Hem, Joh. 15:26, 16:14. Gelijk niemand tot den Vader komt dan door den Zoon, Joh. 14:6, zoo kan niemand zeggen Jezus de Heere te zijn dan door den Heiligen Geest, 1 Cor. 12:3. Door den Geest hebben wij met den Vader en den Zoon zelven

118  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck In Bavinck’s conception, while the Trinity is not a doctrine that is expressed in a propositional statement by any single Scriptural author, it is one that was assumed throughout the New Testament. In Bavinck’s own day he saw attacks from all sides on the Scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity with people trying to lay the foundation for belief of the Trinity on other grounds. These, he thought, were either attacks against the Trinity or attempts to place it on what some perceived to be a more stable base either in tradition or experience. While tradition and experience are indispensable for doing theology, Bavinck believed they could not be the foundation for theological reflection. Picking up on the two principle ancient heresies in Trinitarian theology, Arianism and Sabellianism, Bavinck identified different groups of theological schools and individual theologians as embracing these tendencies. Bavinck labelled both Remonstrant (as seen in the Dutch thinkers such as Scholten) and Groningen theologians Arians.103 As to the Sabellians, Bavinck considered Swedenbord, Schleiermacher, and Hegel to be exemplars of this way of thinking.104 In Dutch academic circles, he argued that the tendency toward Sabellianism could be seen in the theology of Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye (1818–​1874), proponent of the Ethical theology school of thought, fellow Leiden alumnus, and Professor of Theology at the University of Groningen.105 In Bavinck’s estimation, his Trinitarian theology functioned as a ‘symbol’ of the Christian idea of God.

gemeenschap. In den Heiligen Geest woont God zelf door Christus in onze harten in. Indien dit alles alzoo is, dan is de Heilige Geest met den Zoon en den Vader de eenige waarachtige God, eeuwiglijk te loven en te prijzen. 103 Bavinck cites: P. Hofstede de Groot, De Groninger Godgeleerdheid in Hunne Eigenaardigheid (Groningen: Scholtens, 1855), 160ff. The Groningers did not lay stress on the doctrine but on the person of Jesus Christ. They were less concerned with precise theological inquiry focused on the emotional life, producing a journal called Waarheid in Liefde. Een godgeleerd tijdschrift voor beschaafde christenen (Truth in Love: A theological journal for civilized Christians). For more see: George Harinck and Lodewijk Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). Pages?? 104 Bavinck cites: E. Swedenborg, The True Christian Religion (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1896), 241ff.; Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith: A New Translation and Critical Edition, trans. Terrence N. Tice, Catherine L. Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, vol. 1 of 2 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), §170–​172; Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion (Lectures of 1831), in Sämtliche Werk, XV, 136ff., 145ff. 105 It should be remembered that the so called ‘ethical theologians’ in the Netherlands are a variant of the German Vermittlungstheologie. This was a group of theologians that attempted to hold onto objective revelation and ground faith in the subject. Thus, they sought an ‘ethical principle’ as the starting point which reflected whole human experience and not solely an intellectual one. All of this comes together to see religion as primarily a question of morality. See: Veenhof, Revelatie en inspriatie, 141–​249; Cory Brock, Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020), 67–​120.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  119 ‘Therefore, one should no longer start from an abstract concept of the power within God, but from his ethical will: the concept of God must be transplanted from metaphysical ground to ethical ground and, therefore, to the Christological field’.106 Against these attacks it was necessary to establish Trinitarian theology not as the result of church tradition or religious experience but firmly inside the Scripture. While Bavinck acknowledged that the Trinity is the supreme mystery of Scripture, he would not concede the grounding of the doctrine in anything other than Scripture. The essence of Christianity—​the absolute self-​revelation of God in the person of Christ and the absolute self-​communication of God in the Holy Spirit—​could only be maintained, the church believed, if it had its foundation and first principle [principium] in the ontological Trinity. Accordingly, as soon as the data presented to that end by Scripture became the object of theological reflection, a need arose for various terms and expressions that do not occur in Scripture, but are nonetheless indispensable for the twofold purpose of giving expression, however imperfectly, to the truth [of the trinitarian faith] and of maintaining it in the face of misunderstanding and opposition.107

What Bavinck made clear is that the foundation of Christianity is the Trinity, and the basis for belief in the Trinity is not tradition or experience but Scripture. The way this mystery is revealed is in the missions of the Son and the Spirit. Up to this point I have been careful to show how, for Bavinck, the doctrine of the Trinity finds its grounding in Scripture. In Chapters 4 and 5 we will see how Bavinck understood the place of both church tradition and Christian experience in developing Trinitarian theology. However, it is important to emphasize that for Bavinck, the doctrine of the Trinity finds its exclusive grounding in the self-​revelation of God.108 Any attempt to place Trinitarian theology on another foundation, he believed, ultimately leads to Arianism or 106 Herman Bavinck, De theologie van Prof. Dr. Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye: bijdrage tot de kennis der ethische theologie (Leiden: Donner, 1884), 20–​21. Dutch: Men moet daarom niet langer uitgaan van een abstract begrip van macht in God, maar van zijn ethischen wil: het Godsbegrip moet uit het metaphysisch op het ethisch terrein en daardoor christologisch gebied worden overgeplant. 107 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 262. 108 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 130. Interestingly at this point in Magnalia Dei Bavinck cites the Heidelberg Catechism question 25 to better make his case. Q: Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? A. Because God has so revealed himself in his word, that these three distinct persons are the one and only true and eternal God.

120  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Sabellianism. Thus, it is in the Scripture of the Old and New Testament that the Trinity is revealed. God’s revelation of himself is principally located in the missions of the Son and the Spirit which are understood as communicative acts of God. Yet as was seen above, there is a risk of collapsing word and deed into each other. Bavinck attempted to avoid this problem by seeing the actual revelation of the Trinity being that which happened in history in the sending of the Son and Spirit. That is to say, it is no historical accident that revelation is Trinitarian in structure but rather flows out of God having revealed himself as Trinitarian in the missions of the Son and the Spirit.109 Scripture is a witness to the revelatory words and deeds of God. ‘The Old Testament itself indicates that the full revelation of God shall consist in the revelation of his triune being’.110 The New Testament, then, is the reporting and interpreting of the apostles of the missions of the Son and the Spirit.111 It is the presence of the two persons that Bavinck considered to be the revelation, with the words of Scripture bearing witness to that revelation. This all comes back to where this chapter began. Too strong of a distinction between word and deed in revelation results in two separate but equal dangers. Focusing on deeds at the expense of words no longer sees a place for Trinitarian theology and it becomes difficult to see how the deeds of God necessitate the doctrine. The other leads to a mere propositionalism that reduces redemption and Trinitarian theology to no more than assent to a certain set of propositions. Bavinck attempts to avoid both of these dangers in his Trinitarian theology. One way for Bavinck to avoid these errors is to read the two Testaments together, seeing them as an organic whole. The Old Testament prepares for what God will do and the New Testament testifies that God did what he promised.112 This revelation of the Trinity is found in Scripture precisely because, for Bavinck, it is in the Triune God that ‘the whole course of revelation’ is found.113 One may wonder if locating the doctrine of revelation in the Trinity is just a clever conceptual game. However, it is important to recall the ordering of doctrines that Bavinck sets out at the beginning of volume two of Reformed

109 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 130. 110 Bavinck, Handleiding, 65–​66. Dutch: Zoo wijst het Oude Testament zelf ann, dat de volle openbaring Gods in de openbaring van zijn drieëenig wezen zal bestaan. 111 Ibid., 66–​69. 112 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 135. 113 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 163.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  121 Dogmatics. Basing his argument on Romans 11:36 (‘For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever’.), Bavinck explains that the doctrine of God is both the content and the context for the entire field of dogmatics. Every other doctrine flows from this central dogma.114 Based on this logic, a doctrine of revelation that did not take its shape and content from the doctrine of God would be something less than a Christian doctrine of revelation in Bavinck’s reading. Thus far, this chapter has looked at two aspects of the revelation of the Trinity in Scripture as Bavinck developed it. First it considered his claim that revelation bears a Trinitarian character in that it contains the revelatory deeds of God coupled with revelatory words. A potential area of further development in Bavinck’s thought is found in this construction.115 Following this, the chapter dealt with the missions of the Son and the Spirit demonstrating how the sending of the Son and the Spirit is a communicative action for Bavinck. From eternity past, the Triune God has been in a Trinitarian dialogue, with the missions of the Son and Spirit bringing creatures into the divine conversation. Bavinck saw these missions as primarily communicative in nature and showing forth the Triune God. The chapter now turns to the pinnacle of the communicative and revelatory acts of the Triune God in Bavinck’s writings: incarnation and Pentecost. The chapter adds this final piece so that the principal argument of the chapter might be sustained; namely, that in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned Scripture as the foundation of this Trinitarian theology even while his conception of revelation maintained a Trinitarian structure.

Revelation: Missions and Processions The question of where to begin when discussing the missions and processions of the Triune God is one that shows no historical uniformity. The ‘Augustinian model’ argues that one begins with the missions in redemptive-​history and

114 Bavinck, RD2, 29; GD2, 1–​2. 115 While he does see the importance of coupling words and deeds together, the role of words is primarily that of a supplement to revelatory deeds. An improvement on Bavinck’s structure might be revelatory deeds coupled with interpretative and revelatory words. If one followed Bavinck’s thought even further, an argument could be made that the tension Bavinck was trying to resolve is addressed in the mid-​twentieth century with figures like Paul Ricoeur, J.L. Austin, and John Searle and the advent of ‘Speech–​Act theory’. It appears that Bavinck understood the limitations surrounding contemporary theories of language and was searching for a viable alternative to apply to his doctrine of Scripture. Speech–​act theory may have been a helpful path forward for him.

122  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck works one’s way back to the eternal processions.116 This model is advantageous for numerous reasons; principally, it traces the biblical witness and leads to a discovering of where this witness brings one regarding the eternal relations of the persons of the Trinity. On the other side of the argument is Thomas Aquinas who argued that one starts with the eternal processions and work out to the missions.117 This approach could be called the ‘Thomist model’. The advantage it carries is that it starts by treating God in his essence and moving to his free acts in creation. John Webster stated that the Thomist model places soteriology in its proper relation to theology proper.118 Nevertheless, Webster would go on to admit that the ordering does not matter that much: ‘What matters is not starting-​point but scope, scale and distribution of weight’.119 While methodus est arbitaria, Oosterzee noted that this maxim ‘deserves more than ever to be replaced with the phrase methodus est necessaria’.120 That is to say one must have a method even if the starting point of that method seems arbitrary. Bavinck understood the importance of knowing where to start in theological reasoning.121 The danger of the starting point in the Thomist model for Bavinck was one that would assume knowledge of God apart from divine revelation. Similarly, Edmund Hill argued that the Thomist model could lead one down an ‘a priori way of exposition’ presupposing one had ‘already been led along the a posteriori way of discovery’.122 Nevertheless, there is a sense in which Webster is right when asserting that the starting point does not matter. However, just because methodus est arbitaria, does not mean as,

116 See: Augustine, De Trinitate, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill (New York: New City Press, 1990). While this can be properly called the ‘Augustinian model,’ it should be noted that Augustine is not the originator or sole adherent to this method. Augustine adopted a method that many pre-​Nicene fathers (both Greek and Latin) followed. The unique contribution of Augustine was one of precision and expansion of this method making it answer questions that heretofore had been problematic for this way of reasoning. 117 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, ed. Thomas Gilby (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), I.27–​43. 118 John Webster, ‘Omnia. . . Pertractantur in Sacra Doctrina sub Ratione Dei: On the Matter of Christian Theology’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 8. 119 John Webster, ‘ “It was the Will of the Lord to Bruise Him”: Soteriology and the Doctrine of God’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology, vol. 1 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 151. 120 J.J. van Oosterzee, Christelijke Dogmatiek: Een Handboek voor Academisch Onderwijs en Eigen Oefening, vol. 1 (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1876), 91. Dutch: Het oude spreekword, zelden geheel waar: ‘methodus est arbitaria,’ verdient meer dan immer door de spreuk: ‘methodus est necessaria’ vervangen te worden. 121 Bavinck, RD2, 30; GD2, 2–​3. 122 Edmund Hill, The Mystery of the Trinity (London: Chapman, 1985), 147.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  123 Barth asserted, ‘the arbiter can sleep and dream, and then decide according to his fancy’.123 Thus, Bavinck contended that we must begin with God’s self-​ revelation as we encounter it in Scripture. In doing this Bavinck followed the Augustinian method for his understanding of the divine processions, moving from the knowledge of the missions of the Son and the Spirit in redemptive-​ history and from there deriving an understanding of the eternal processions. In many ways this is an unsurprising position for Bavinck. It has already been shown that Bavinck was heavily influenced by both nineteenth century historicism and an Augustinian view of history.124 The decision to trace the action of God in history and reason back to the eternal relations bears a distinctly historicist colour.125 This is because rather than starting with an eternal truth, Bavinck starts with the particulars of revelation in history. However, unlike other histroricists, such as Troeltsch, Bavinck argued that from those particulars he could arrive at universals. Following this Augustinian model is not without its disadvantages, two of which are particularly noteworthy. First, in starting with the unity of God, theology must revise its understanding of God as it progresses in the revelation of God (both canonically and chronologically). The second danger follows from historicist concerns. Starting with the works of God ad extra could lend itself to a presumption that only the works of God ad extra are meaningful. Acknowledging these two dangers, Bavinck still went down this path. He went from the works ad extra (i.e., the missions of the Son and the Spirit) to the relations of God ad intra (i.e., the processions of the Son and the Spirit). To show this, it is necessary to step back and see how Bavinck read Scripture. For Bavinck, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament constitute an organic whole. He argued that this understanding of Scripture was a guard against gnostic mysticism on the one hand, and rationalism on the other.126

123 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), I.2, 860. 124 See Chapters 1 and 2. 125 Van Bekkum has noted the way Bavinck was willing to engage with higher critical Biblical scholarship (some of this may be because of his training at Leiden and working with Kuenen). Bavinck was always willing to interact with the higher critical scholars and did not dismiss out of hand the work they were doing. Van Bekkum states that according to Bavinck ‘if critical research takes its point of departure in the conviction that God has revealed himself in history and appreciates the diversity of the biblical testimony, it will become evident that the Jesus of history and the Christ of the church’s confession are one and the same’. See: van Bekkum, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Use of Scripture’. 126 Bavinck, RD1, 466–​469; GD1, 436–​439.

124  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck In Christ God’s revelation has been completed. In the same way the message of salvation is completely contained in Scripture. It constitutes a single whole; it itself conveys the impression of an organism that has reached its full growth. It ends where it begins. It is a circle that returns into itself. It begins with the creation of heaven and earth and ends with the re-​creation of heaven and earth.127

It appears that, for Bavinck, there is a concept of ‘intertextuality’ that is reminiscent of Luther in which one can read one text of Scripture in light of another text (i.e., the parables in light of the passion narrative).128 Coupling this with a conception of the Scripture as containing the word of God, Bavinck argued that Scripture must be read as an organic whole.129 According to Bavinck, uncoupling the Old and New Testaments led to the Trinitarian heresies that have been mentioned above (Arianism and Sabellianism). It is thus only with an organic understanding of Scripture that he believed one is able to see the God who elects in the Old Testament, sends his Son in the incarnation, and pours out his Spirit at Pentecost.130 It is the unity of mission of the Godhead that provides for a united canon of the Old and New Testaments. Revelation reveals the Trinity because revelation is Trinitarian in structure. As such, he maintained, the starting place for a coherent Trinitarian theology is a unified reading of Scripture.131 Bavinck’s approach contrasted strongly with the higher critical approach to Scripture taught by Scholten and Kuenen at Leiden, who believed it should be read as a collection of human texts like any other. This practice yielded helpful exegetical results. However, taken too far, Bavinck saw that it led to the denial of miracles and revelation.132 For Bavinck, the only way to 127 Bavinck, RD1, 491; GD1, 462. 128 One can also see what a proto-​Ricoeurian link here as well. See: Paul Ricoeur, ‘The Bible and Imagination’ in The Bible as a Document of the University, ed. Hans Dieter Betz (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 49–​ 75; ‘Biblical Hermeneutics’, Semeia 4 (1975), 29–​ 148; cf. Kevin Vanhoozer, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 199–​204. 129 Bavinck, Handleiding, 28–​29. 130 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 135; cf. Philosophy of Revelation, 162–​163. 131 Almost a century later, Scott Swain would make a similar observation in his Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and its Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2011). 132 Interestingly, the year before the second edition of the Prolegomena of Bavinck’s Dogmatics was released, Leiden professor, Bernardus Eerdmans (1868–​1948), delivered an address at the Modern Theologians’ Assembly (1905). In this lecture he critiqued Bavinck’s project along these very lines. He argued that Bavinck’s work was little more than a secularised theology which maintained only a superficial connection to orthodoxy. In sum, Eerdmans claimed that Bavinck had produced a dogmatic in which ‘a miracle is no longer an actual miracle’. See: Eglinton, Bavinck, 240–​243; Bavinck, ‘Vergadering van Moderne Theologen’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 3 May 1905.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  125 maintain an orthodox doctrine of God was through reading the Scriptures as a unified whole. ‘However, one forgets thereby that the doctrine of God in Christian theology is not built on singular disparate statements but on the whole of revelation in Scripture’.133 While many hold that the only way to construct a Trinitarian theology is a practice in proof-​texting, Bavinck’s position was that that is exactly the way to destroy Trinitarian theology.134 The Creator of the heavens and the earth in whom all creatures live and move and have their being, who is incomparable, indescribable, infinite and eternal, He too is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and in Him the Father of all his children. I would have to go through the entire Scriptures with you in order to portray this unity of God before your eyes in its full glory, but I can summarize everything in these truly beautiful words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘This is what the high and lofty One says—​he who lives forever, whose name is holy: I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite’. This unity, which is of quite a different kind and has a much richer and deeper meaning than the word ‘monotheism’ expresses, is sought in vain beyond the domain of special revelation.135

For Bavinck, the starting place for Trinitarian theology is understanding the Bible as a unified whole and learning to read it as such. Bavinck recognized that this position was difficult to reconcile with the historical turn. As was shown in Chapter 1 and will be examined even more in Chapter 4, the question of Biblical authority was one with which Bavinck struggled for most of his career, even having a decade-​long conversation about it with his sceptical friend, Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje. However, Bavinck could not sway from a foundational commitment to Deus dixit.136

133 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 96; Herman Bavinck, Modernisme en Orthodoxie (Kampen: Kok, 1911), 27–​28. 134 While the topic was rebuilding of society following the Great War and the Trinity, in 1917 Bavinck delivered an address to a group of young people in which he addressed the dangers of proof texting as a method for reading the Bible. The argument still stands. Instead of proof texts, he argued for using the ‘great lines of Scripture’ as Biblical principle for a model to rebuild social order. See: Bavinck, ‘De Jongelingenvereeniging in hare beteekenis voor het sociale leven: Rede gehouden op de 29e bondsdag van de Nederlandschen Bond van Jongelingsvereenigingen op Geref. Grondslag’ (n.p., 1917). Cf. Eglinton, Bavinck, 272–​281. 135 Pass, ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 97; ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 28–​29. 136 Eglinton, Bavinck, 285–​287; van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek, 175–​225, 233–​284; van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology, 281.

126  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck As Bavinck understood it, for Scripture to be read as a unified whole, it had to have a storyline or narrative arc.137 It was the gradual unfolding of a mystery.138 That unfolding is intimately tied to redemptive history. Bavinck explicated this narrative flow in a number of places.139 In his view, the revelation of God is closely bound to soteriology. God’s revealing of himself and his saving for himself a people are connected. The doctrine of God and the doctrine of redemption go hand in hand. God is the one at work in Scripture. He is the primary agent because Scripture exists to reveal God to humanity. Thus, Bavinck thought, as Scripture unfolds it shows forth more and more of who God is. It is not a collection of disparate, unconnected parts, but a unified whole that when read together tells one story and puts God on display before the reader. ‘And the essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that the creation of the Father, ruined by sin, is restored in the death of the Son of God and re-​created by the grace of the Holy Spirit into a kingdom of God’.140 It is important to note here how Bavinck pointed to the essence of Christianity being about this soteriological aim. This soteriological aim is Trinitarian in nature bearing the characteristic of being a story. Bavinck argued, it is a unified story that is recounted in Scripture. Not only is it a unified story, but it is a story that moves forward in a progressive line that proceeds from God’s revelation of himself in creation to the Fall into sin, and then to the revelation of the Son of God in his incarnation and death. Finally, he contended, the last act in this story is the work of the Holy Spirit in being poured out and applying that work through growing this people into the kingdom of God. It is a soteriology that is connected to the revelation of the Triune God. To make the point even clearer, Bavinck continued: Dogmatics shows us how God, who is all-​sufficient in himself, nevertheless glorifies himself in his creation, which, even when it is torn apart by sin, is gathered up again in Christ (Eph. 1:10). It describes for us God, always God, from beginning to end—​God in his being, God in his creation, God against sin, God in Christ, God breaking down all resistance through the Holy Spirit and guiding the whole of creation back to the objective he decreed for it: the glory of his name. Dogmatics, therefore, is not a dull and 137 Van Bekkum makes a similar argument noting that when Bavinck brings larger passages together as ‘proof-​texts’ it is more than mere proof-​texting, but it is drawing the lines of the Scriptural narrative arc. See: van Bekkum, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Use of Scripture’. 138 Bavinck, RD2, 29.; GD2, 1–​2. 139 Bavinck, RD2, 261–​279; GD2, 225–​245; Magnalia Dei, 130–​139; Handleiding, 62–​72. 140 Bavinck, RD1, 112; GD1, 89.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  127 arid science. It is a theodicy, a doxology to all God’s virtues and perfections, a hymn of adoration and thanksgiving, a ‘glory to God in the highest’ [δοζα έν ύψιστοις Θεω] (Luke 2:14).141

Accordingly, for Bavinck revelation, from which dogmatic reflection is derived, is about God. It shows forth the God who exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, as has already been shown, this revelation is not impersonal revelation. Bavinck militates against the modern ‘the philosophies of Fichte, Hegel, Schleiermacher, and Biedermann’ which ‘had sacrificed personality to the absolute, the recent Neo-​Kantian theology led some of its adherents to abandon the absoluteness of God for the sake of personality’.142 For Bavinck, the transcendent God meets humanity in time and space. Not only this, but this God, who has descended to save his people, reveals himself in his work of salvation. In the missions of the Son and the Spirit, God unites himself to his people, giving them the gift of being in communion with him forever.143 As Bavinck explained it, these missions and this revelation are inherently personal. It is not enough for the revelation to be externally given. There also needs to be an internal principle which works in a person to cause them to receive this revelation.144 The presupposition running in the background of all of Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology is that the missions of the Son and the Spirit reveal something about God. He also understands these missions to be the pinnacle of God’s self-​revelation, not another in a series of self-​revelations.145 Thus, from the missions, Bavinck reasoned back to the processions. Fred Sanders argues that this is the task of all Trinitarian theology. The theologian, he writes, is ‘systematically posing the question of how salvation history is to be correlated with the divine being in itself ’.146 For Bavinck, the works of God (particularly the incarnation of the Son and outpouring of the Spirit) ad extra reveal the processions of God ad intra.

141 Bavinck, RD1, 112; GD1, 89–​90. 142 Pass, ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 97; ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 29. 143 Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, 79. 144 Van den Belt recognizes this aspect of the internal principle in Bavinck’s work as well. See: Van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture, 294. 145 Bavinck, RD2, 269; GD2, 234. 146 Fred Sanders, ‘The Trinity’ in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, eds. John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 35.

128  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Bavinck argued that it was the appropriate mission for the Son to become incarnate and the appropriate mission for the Spirit to be poured out at Pentecost. Their missions ad extra flow from their relations ad intra. The Father could not be sent, for he is the first in order and is self-​existent; the Spirit proceeds from the Son, succeeds him, and is sent by him. But the Son was the one suited for the incarnation. In the divine being he occupies the place between the Father and the Spirit, is by nature the Son and image of God, was mediator already in the first creation, and as Son could restore us to our position as children of God.147

It is in the incarnation that one is able to see the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. As Bavinck explained it, the role of the Son becoming incarnate was one of fittingness. The incarnation could only be of the Son because divine Sonship is eternal. ‘For if the Son is not eternal, then of course God is not the eternal Father either. In that case he was God before he was Father, and only later—​in time—​became Father’.148 Bavinck made a similar assessment regarding the Spirit. He connected the mission (i.e., pouring out) ad extra with the eternal procession ad intra. ‘Just as breath comes out of our mouth, so the Spirit proceeds from God and keeps all creatures alive’.149 In the Spirit preserving life, the life of God ad intra is revealed. Bavinck went on to connect this with the way in which Scripture describes the work of the Spirit ad extra. In Scripture this procession of the Spirit is described by various terms. Usually we are told that the Spirit is given by God or by Christ (Num. 11:29; Neh. 9:20; Isa. 42:1; Ezek. 36:27; John 3:34; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), sent or sent forth (Ps. 104:30; John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Gal. 4:6; Rev. 5:6), poured out (Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Joel 2:28–​29; Zech. 12:10; Acts 2:17–​18), came down from God (Matt. 3:16), was put in the midst of Israel (Isa. 63:11; Hag. 2:5), or put on someone (Matt. 12:18), or breathed upon persons (John 20:22), and so on. But we are also told that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (ἐκπορευεται παρα του πατρος, John 15:26).150



147 Bavinck, RD3, 276; GD3, 256–​257. 148 Bavinck, RD2, 310; GD2, 277. 149 Bavinck, RD2, 277; GD2, 243. 150 Bavinck, RD2, 277; GD2, 243.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  129 While Bavinck is careful to make clear that the work of the Spirit does not change between the Old and New Testaments, it is at Pentecost that the Holy Spirit most clearly reveals himself. Reading that revelation backwards and developing the thoughts more in the rest of the New Testament, a theology of the eternal procession (or spiration) of the Spirit from the Father and the Son developed. Bavinck never clearly lays out the distinction between generation and procession. In fact, he drew attention to this very fact and argued that he is in line with many (i.e., Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin) throughout the ages by refraining from saying precisely what is happening in generation and spiration. He argued, ‘(1) that the Son proceeds only from the Father, but the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son; or (2) that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as given by both, not as born from both (ut datus, non ut natus)’.151 For Bavinck, the archetypal-​ ectypal distinction helps develop one’s thinking in this area. It is due to the missions that are carried out in history that one is able to know the relations. One does not have knowledge of the relations in the same way that God has knowledge of the relations, but one speaks in language that is analogous.152 ‘As regards the Christian dogma par excellence, that is, the doctrine of the Trinity, it was readily admitted that the terms being, person, generation, spiration, etc. were deficient and only served as tools to maximally preserve the truth of the Scriptures against its opponents’.153 According to Bavinck it is taking revelation from Scripture on the missions ad extra that then becomes the material for him to reason back to the relations ad intra. The language used to describe the relations is analogous but because it is built on the revelation of God which is perfectly seen in the face of Jesus, Bavinck argued that this language was accurate while still deficient.

Conclusion The Trinity is a mystery. Yet, as Bavinck understood and explained it, it is a mystery which has been revealed. In revelation, we have all the data necessary for constructing Trinitarian theology. This is because revelation comes



151 Bavinck, RD2, 313; GD2, 280. 152 153

Pass, ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 103‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 34. Ibid.; ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 34–​35.

130  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck to us in the shape of the Trinity or to use a word coined by Eglinton, revelation is ‘triniform’.154 That triniformity of revelation finds its centre, its midpoint, in Christ. Revelation flows out from him and leads the theologian back to him. For Bavinck, this was the essence of Christianity, the very centre of Christianity being God’s perfect self-​revelation in the incarnation of the divine Logos and self-​communication in the Holy Spirit. The missions of the Son and Spirit were communicative missions because God is from all eternity communicating himself to himself. In the missions of the Son and the Spirit, word and deed are brought together and made inseparable. Bavinck does not stop at just seeing God revealed in his words ad extra, but from God’s works ad extra, Bavinck reasoned back to the divine life ad intra. While he readily admitted that we can only speak in analogous language about the intra-​Trinitarian relations, Bavinck also believed that we could speak of that life, we could know something of the intra-​Trinitarian relations. The Trinity is a mystery, but it is a revealed mystery. This chapter has argued that in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned Scripture as the foundation of his Trinitarian theology even while he maintained that the revelation to which Scripture witnessed was Trinitarian in structure. The chapter did this by considering his contention that all revelation is chiefly oriented toward revealing the Triune God and, therefore, is Christologically determined and triniform in shape. It then examined the inherently communicative nature of the missions ad extra of the Son and the Spirit, showing how these missions functioned for Bavinck as evidence that revelation is not less than words but also not merely words. Building on all of this, the final section of this chapter investigated Bavinck’s claim that the pinnacle of revelation is the incarnation and Pentecost which draw together the works of God ad extra and ad intra. These sections together demonstrate the major argument of this chapter concerning revelation as both revealing the Trinity and being triniform in structure. At the end of Bavinck’s first Stone Lecture, he said: Revelation, while having its center in the Person of Christ, in its periphery extends to the uttermost ends of creation. It does not stand in isolation in nature and history, does not resemble an island in the ocean, nor a drop of oil upon water. . . . The foundations of creation and redemption are the same. The Logos who became flesh is the same by whom all things were

154 Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 51.

Trinity and Retrieval: Revelation  131 made. The firstborn from the dead is also the firstborn of every creature. The Son, whom the Father made heir of all things, is the same by whom he also made the world.155

Revelation finds its centre in Christ. All revelation, be it general or special, is read through him as the lens. This understanding of Christ as the centre ties back to Bavinck’s understanding of history. It also points forward to the other principia in Bavinck’s theological method. I have already demonstrated that Bavinck did not believe that a dogmatic system could be constructed by Scripture alone. To do this would be to make the system ‘non-​ecclesiastical’ at best and ‘anti-​ecclesiastical’ at worst.156 Even more than this, a dogmatic system had to ‘conjoin itself to the consciousness and life of the times in which it appears and labors’.157 Thus, while Bavinck believed Scriptures to be the principium unicum, the Scriptures did not work alone. They must be complemented with the church and the individual Christian consciousness. Having looked at this first principium, this project now turns its attention to the second: the church tradition. The following chapters will construct the larger argument of this thesis; principally, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck.

155 Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation, 24–​25. 156 Bavinck, ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64; ‘Pros and Cons’, 98. 157 Pass, ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 104; ‘Modernisme en Orthodoxie’, 35. The quote in context reads: The whole of Christian theology is even built on the assumption that it cannot consist in a literalistic reproduction of Holy Scripture but that it must develop itself independently and freely, bound only to its object, taking a position in special revelation and thereby conjoin itself to the consciousness and life of the times in which it appears and labours.

4 Trinity and Retrieval Confession

In 1902 Bavinck was part of a committee of pastors and professors convened by the General Synod of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken, GKN). The task they had been given was to report on an objection which Bavinck, Kuyper, and others had raised in 1896 concerning article 36 of the Belgic Confession, one of the three confessional documents in the Dutch Reformed tradition.1 The particular clause of the Confession to which they objected was on the role of the civil magistrate in the maintenance of religion. According to the Belgic Confession the civil magistrate had the duty of ‘the extermination of all idolatry and false religion with the sword if necessary’.2 The men who made this complaint believed that the state bore the responsibility to ensure no hindrance to the proclamation of the Word of God was imposed. However, their belief was that the state did not have the authority to exterminate idolatry and false religion. False religion and idolatry are ecclesial matters, and the church does not possess the power of the sword.3 In the report which this committee submitted, they stated: ‘No matter how high we set our Confession, a Church which, if requested, refuses to test her confession against the Word of God would cease being a Protestant Church’.4 The committee’s report acknowledged the 1 Herman Bavinck, Thomas Bos, et. al, ‘Advies in zake het gravamen tegen artikel XXXVI der belijdenis’ (Amsterdam: Hövecker & Wormser, 1905), 1–​2. 2 Bavinck, Bos, et al. ‘Advies in zake het gravamen’, 1–​2. Dutch: Zij gaan hierbij uit van de h.i. onbetwistbare waarheid, dat wij, de confessie onzer vaderen belijdende, onder de woorden waarin zij beleden, niets anders verstaan mogen, dan hetgeen zij zelven, blijkens het stellige getuigenis der geschiedenis, met het bezigen dezer woorden bedoeld hebben; en dat, aldus verstaan en opgevat, deze derde zinsnede van art. onzer belijdenis, bij oprechte en eerlijke uitlegging, o.m. aan de wereldlijke overheid den plicht oplegt, om afgoderij en valschen godsdienst desnoods met het zwaard uit te roeien, en dat het aan de kerken is opgelegd, de overheid dit als haar plicht te prediken. See: Belgic Confession, Art. 36. The wording in the English reads: And their office is, not only to have regard unto, and watch for the welfare of the civil state; but also that they protect the sacred ministry; and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. 3 Bavinck, Bos, et al. ‘Advies in zake het gravamen’, 5. 4 Ibid., 6. Dutch: Hoe hoog we ook onze Belijdenis stellen, een Kerk die desgevraagd zou weigeren haar belijdenis aan Gods Woord te toetsen, zou ophouden een Protestantsche Kerk te zijn.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0005

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  133 intimate relationship which exists between Scripture and the Church’s confession, yet that relationship is not without tension. While this episode occurred at what would be considered the middle of Bavinck’s academic career, one can observe that even early in his career he was acutely aware of this tension. In an article first published in 1881, he stated: ‘[P]‌roperly speaking, a dogmatic system can never be obtained from Scripture’.5 Bavinck would go on to argue that the church is a necessary part of the development of a dogmatic system. While Scripture is the formal principle of Reformed Protestants, sola Scriptura (the Bible alone as the highest authority) does not mean solo Scriptura (only the Bible).6 For Bavinck, there was a recognition that in order to maintain catholicity in a dogmatic system, creeds and confessions need to hold some degree of authority in a constructive dogmatic project.7 Thus, for Bavinck, constructive theology is necessarily a project of retrieval of the church’s historical witness; it is not merely the retrieval of the Biblical witness. Whereas the previous chapter argued that Bavinck understood the Trinity as a doctrine founded in revelation and revelation as triniform in structure, Bavinck did not believe Trinitarian theology as formulated in subsequent Christian doctrine is explicitly expressed as such in revelation. The Trinity is present, but the dogma of the Trinity needed to be explicated through ecclesiastical reflection. This chapter will demonstrate that Bavinck’s own constructive project in Trinitarian theology retrieved the historic teachings of the church which were put down in the creeds, confessions, and the works of the early church, as well as, medieval and early modern theologians on whom Bavinck relied. This is done while acknowledging Planck’s description of the attitude which historicism produced. No longer was something true simply because an ‘orthodox’ historical figure said it was so.8 The place of ecclesiastical confession in Bavinck’s theological methodology is the driving concern of this chapter. In the last chapter, I argued that 5 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 98; ‘Het voor en tegen can een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck, ed. C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 63. 6 Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 154. Vanhoozer goes on to note, ‘The main problem with “solo” scriptura is that each individual biblical interpreter sees what is right in his or her own eyes’. 7 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), 250–​251; De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk: Rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theol. School te Kampen op 18 December 1888 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 188), 52. 8 G.J. Planck, Einleitung in die theologische Wissenschaften, vol. 1 of 2 (Leipzig: 1974), 109; Cf. p. 11.

134  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned Scripture as the foundation of this Trinitarian theology even while his conception of revelation maintained a Trinitarian structure. I applied that to his construction of Trinitarian theology, showing how Bavinck understood Christ as the midpoint of revelation. All revelation is read through the lens of Christ. However, the doctrine of God both shapes and controls the doctrine of revelation for Bavinck. Revelation is closely connected to redemption and both are dependent on a doctrine of God that is Trinitarian in structure. Bavinck saw this as possible because he leaned on and constructed his dogmatic system through the deployment of the nineteenth-​century Romantic notion of organicism. Thus, it is difficult to consider one principium in isolation from the rest; taking Scripture without regard to confession or Christian consciousness, produces a flat reading of Bavinck’s theological project and runs the risk of misrepresenting his thought. Thus, having looked at the first principium in Bavinck’s theological method, this project now turns to consider the second, confession. In this chapter I argue that for Bavinck, ecclesiastical confession holds a ministerial authority over his theological methodology.9 By advancing this argument, this chapter builds on the previous one to continue the process of reconstructing Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology by applying his own theological methodology to his dogmatics. This then advances the larger argument made in the book; principally that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. To accomplish this task, the chapter will move in three stages. First, I will look at the way Bavinck envisioned the relationship of confessional formulae and Scripture. Following from this, in the second stage this chapter will examine Bavinck’s own work in historical theological retrieval in the Dutch Reformed tradition. This section will be focused particularly on Bavinck’s editing of the Synopsis purioris theologiae, the early modern work mentioned in Chapter 1. Third, and finally, I will investigate how Bavinck interacted with broader Christian tradition when constructing his Trinitarian theology. As such, this chapter builds on the three previous chapters and especially the first, as it considers the impact that the nineteenth-​century historical turn had on Bavinck as he worked with and retrieved old orthodoxy. The chapter will show that Bavinck’s engagement with many historical texts is unremarkable. 9 Bavinck, RD1, 61; GD1, 36.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  135 Nevertheless, the historicist attitude toward the retrieval is pronounced. He does not accept old orthodoxy simply because it is old. It will ultimately provide us with one more piece in Bavinck’s theological methodology, giving more of the picture of how he envisioned the process of constructing his dogmatic system.

Confession: Its Relation to Scripture It would be easy to look at the Reformation and wonder if it was a failure. One need only consider Alister McGrath’s recent study where he compares Protestantism to a microorganism capable of rapid mutation. When addressing the question of the essence of Protestantism McGrath asserts that there is ‘no single, unambiguous Protestant template, gene, or paradigm’.10 McGrath contends that Protestantism ‘locates its identity in its constant self-​ examination in the light of the Bible and in its willingness to correct itself when it takes wrong turns or situations change’.11 Brad Gregory makes more radical claims about the effects of the Reformation. Gregory argues that the Reformation is responsible for countless religious (i.e., hyper-​pluralism) and social (i.e., secularism) woes. ‘By rejecting the authority of the Roman church, the Reformation eliminated any shared framework for the integration of knowledge’.12 For both McGrath and Gregory, Protestantism sowed the seeds of destruction from the very beginning by insisting on the principle of sola Scriptura. Coupled with the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, this led to interpretative anarchy. According to McGrath’s account, as early as 1525 Luther recognized the problem and ‘tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of religious leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible’.13 However, by this time it was already too late. Gregory concurs and points to the underlying problem for Protestants: ‘[f]‌rom the early 1520s, those who rejected Rome disagreed about what God’s word said. Therefore they disagreed about what God’s truth was, and so about what Christians were to believe and do’.14 10 Alister McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–​A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-​First (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 463. 11 Ibid., 465. 12 Brad Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), 326. 13 McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, 3. 14 Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, 89.

136  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Thus, if the standard for success with regard to the Reformation is either unity of movement or unambiguous adherence to a particular reading of Scripture, the Reformation was a failure. Within a generation, a movement which aimed to reclaim Scripture with the motto sola Scriptura had become one of the most prolific confession-​writing movements in church history. Bavinck acknowledged as much when he stated: 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. All dogmaticians, when they go to work, stand consciously or unconsciously in the tradition of the Christian faith in which they were born and nurtured and come to Scripture as Reformed, or Lutheran, or Roman Catholic Christians. . . . To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e., from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith.15

Far from being a call for Scripture reading over and against the church and its tradition, the purpose of sola Scriptura was rather a reorienting in theological discourse. Church tradition or confessions were moved from what the Reformers perceived to be a magisterial role into a ministerial role. The Reformers believed that by doing this they had resituated Scripture in the magisterial position that only it deserved. Thus, at the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century, Bavinck argued that this reorientation was bound to create a renewed emphasis on theologizing. He wrote, ‘Scripture does not exist to be memorized and parroted but to enter into the fullness and richness of the entire range of human life, to shape and guide it, and to bring it to independent activity in all areas’.16 Bavinck recognized that this process required other disciplines. Theology did not operate independently of the other sciences but drew on them, most heavily on philosophy. However, he was quick to note that no single philosophical system is ‘the Christian philosophy’ nor did philosophy add anything to dogmatics.17 Philosophy is but a tool. Thus, for Bavinck, while strictly speaking Scripture contains no

15 Bavinck, RD1, 82–​83; GD1, 67–​68. 16 Bavinck, RD1, 493; GD1, 464.

17 Bavinck, RD2, 279–​280; GD2, 246.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  137 dogmatics, it is Scripture alone, not speculative reasoning, that is the sole source for the material on which dogmatic reflection is based.18 In all of this, however, Bavinck recognized that Scripture is read in the light of a particular community into which the theologian is born. It is impossible and even dangerous to try and abstract oneself from this context. In an early article ‘Confessie en dogmatiek’, written while Bavinck was still writing the Reformed Dogmatics, he made this very point. Failure to understand this historical continuity has always only advanced individualism, and despite the best intentions it has multiplied impure conceptions of the truth of the gospel, which they want to restore to its purity. Gregory of Nazianzus already said of the heretics, ‘quo amor litterae nihil aliud quam impietatis indumentum ipsis esses’. That is harshly judged and sharply said, but there is still truth in it. First, in the name of Scripture, the confession is condemned. Before long the Scriptures must make way for the person of Christ. And finally, one moves from Christ back to God, and only keeps a natural knowledge of God. The Supranaturalists, Groninger, and Modern Theology in this country in this century represent the consecutive moments in this process of disintegration.19

There are three things to note from this quote. First, Bavinck believed that maintaining a confession was key to upholding catholicity. As is seen in the reference above, he maintained that the ignoring of creeds and confessions breaks with historical continuity, leading only to individualism which by definition is non-​ecclesial.20 Second, Bavinck believed he could make the argument from a historical example in the Netherlands. He argued that this progression had happened starting with a group he called the Supranaturalists. Two of Bavinck’s contemporaries, the Ethical theologian 18 Bavinck, RD1, 89; GD1, 66. 19 Herman Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, Theologische Studiën, 3 (1891), 263–​ 264. Dutch: Miskenning van deze historische continuïteit heeft daarom altijd slechts het individualisme bevorderd, en tegen de beste bedoelingen in juist de onzuivere opvattingen vermeerderd van die evangeliewaarheid, welke men in haar zuiverheid herstellen wilde. Gregorius van Nazianz zeide reeds van de ketters, quo amor litterae nihil aliud quam impietatis indumentum ipsis esses. Dat is hard geoordeeld en scherp gezegd, maar er ligt toch waarheid in. Eerst wordt in naam van de Schrift de belijdenis veroordeeld. Straks moet de Schrift voor den persoon van Christus plaats maken. En eindelijk gaat men ook van Christus tot God terug, en houdt slechts eene natuurlijke Godskennis over. De Supranaturalistische, Groninger en Moderne Theologie vertegenwoordigen hier te lande in deze eeuw de opeenvolgende momenten in dit ontbindingsproces. 20 Cf. Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, 245–​246; De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk, 44–​45.

138  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck J.H. Gunning (1859–​1951) and the Kuyperian A.G. Honig (1864–​1940) argued that the Supranaturalists were a sort of mediating position: Gunning stated they ‘were half-​orthodox or half-​liberal’.21 A.G. Honig, who had studied under Kuyper, contended that Supranaturalism was merely a version of deism.22 Bavinck saw this group starting in the nineteenth century in the Netherlands: men like Johannes Hendricus van der Palm (1763–​1840), Johannes van Voorst (1757–​1833), and Wessel Albert van Hengel (1779–​ 1871). Bavinck characterized the theology of those whom he considered inside this group as maintaining revelation ‘asserting its necessity, possibility, and validity on a variety of rational and historical grounds’ while at the same time being ‘anticonfessional, antiphilosophical, and anti-​Calvinistic. It produced a dogmatic that was deistic in its doctrine of God (theology proper), Pelagian in anthropology, moralistic in Christology, collegialist in ecclesiology, and eudaemonist in eschatology’.23 These Supranaturalists believed that it was possible to jettison the articles of faith for the purpose of protecting the Bible while still holding that those articles of faith were true because they happened in some supra-​natural (transcendent) world. In Bavinck’s estimation the theology of the Supranaturalists led to the Groningen school (theologians such as, Phillip Willem van Heusde, Louis Gerlach Pareau, Johan Frederik van Oordt, and Petrus Hostfede de Groot), who took up the motto, ‘Not doctrine, but life. . . not doctrine, but the Lord!’24 That motto was, for Bavinck, a move away from Scripture to Christ. In leaving Scripture, the Groningers believed they were protecting Christ. All of this culminated, for Bavinck, in Modern theology (Leiden, Scholten, Kuenen) which no longer looked to Christ but to God. God was no longer most perfectly known in the face of Christ but through reason. Thus, their call, which was embodied in the work of Lodewijk Rauwenhoff, was for theology to be secularized. Bavinck did not see these developments as positive. For him, confessions were a necessary part of being both catholic and Christian in any recognizable sense of the words. However, the above quote introduces a tension in Bavinck’s thought, which is the third point to note. One wonders how confession or church 21 As J.H. Gunning put it these ‘Supranaturalists’ were ‘half-​orthodox or half-​liberal’. (See: J.H. Gunning, Waartoe Verwonderd?: Een Kort Woord tot toelichting van de jongste bewegingen op kerkelijk gebied, inzonderheid te ‘s Gravenhage (‘s Gravenhage: M.J. Visser, 1864), 8–​9 n. 1. Dutch: supra-​ naturalisten (gematigd-​orthodoxen of gematigd-​liberalen). 22 A.G. Honig, ‘Ethisch’ of Gereformeerd?: Eene Studie (Utrecht: G.J.A. Ruys, 1914), 12, 45, 51–​52. 23 Bavinck, RD1, 192; GD1, 191. 24 Dutch: Niet de leer, maar het leven. . . Niet der leer, maar de Heer!

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  139 tradition can be the lens through which Scripture is read if Scripture alone is the Reformed principle for dogmatics. Does Scripture really determine dogmatic reflection for Bavinck? As was demonstrated in Chapter 2, Bavinck’s concern was the union of the subject and the object. To Bavinck, when one breaks the connection between subject and object, the necessary result is to privilege one of the two over the other. For Bavinck, the solution to this problem is the organic motif in conjunction with the theological principia. There is an organic connection, he asserts, between Scripture and confession. In practice, confessions function as a guard against an overly subjective theological method. ‘Therefore, there are already many unchangeable truths; fixed lines are given to each part of the theological science, from which we cannot deviate without much injury to ourselves and our science’.25 The church gives us the content of our faith. That is, confession provides us with a map for navigating Scripture and constructing a dogmatic system.26 This obviously created a tension for Bavinck. If the Reformation intended to place church confession in its proper (ministerial role), did Bavinck actually give it a more magisterial role? Or put more provocatively, is Scripture alone truly the only source for dogmatic material for Bavinck? In an attempt to resolve this tension, Bavinck carefully distinguished Scripture as a principium of dogmatics but not a font or fountain. The idea of fountain, he argued, produced an overly mechanical relationship between dogmatic or confessional reflection and Scripture. [T]‌he word principium points to an organic bond. Scripture is not a fountain out of which one scoops water. It is not a law book full of articles that one only needs to look up. But it is the organic principle, the seed, the root, from which the plant of dogmatics grows.27

Once again, one can see how Bavinck deployed the organic motif connected with the idea of theological principia to aid him in resolving this apparent 25 Herman Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid: rede ter aanvaarding van het leeraarsambt aan de Theologische School te Kampen, uitgesproken den 10 January 1883 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1883), 46. Dutch: Vandaar dat vele waarheden reeds onveranderlijk staan; dat er vaste lijnen in elk deel der Godgeleerde wetenschap gegeven zijn, van welke wij niet dan tot schade van onszelven en van onze wetenschap afwijken kunnen. 26 Bavinck, RD1, 31; GD1, 6. 27 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 267. Dutch: [H]‌et woord principium wijst op een organisch verband. De Schrift is geen bron, waaruit men het water maar voor het scheppen heeft. Zij is geen wetboek vol artikelen, dat men maar behoeft na te slaan. Maar zij is het organische beginsel, de kiem, de wortel, waar de plant der dogmatiek uit opwast.

140  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck tension. His concern was not just Scripture’s authoritative place over confession, but also the role of Scripture in constructing dogmatic systems. He had seen the rise of using Scripture solely as a source book for proof texts of various doctrines. In fact, Bavinck observed this tendency with dogmatic systems which purported to be constructed on Scripture alone, ‘under the slogan of sola Scriptura, by reducing Scripture virtually to a codebook, denigrating it to something like a codex Justinianeus from which one plucks the articula fidei, this approach usually risks becoming very unscriptural and losing its function of serving the church’.28 As was argued in the previous chapter Bavinck understood the need to read Scripture as an organic whole, following the narrative arc, and not using isolated prooftexts out of context. It would not do to treat the relationship between confession and Scripture as one where the theologian searches for isolated texts which prove the veracity of her position.29 For Bavinck, there were two separate but equal dangers. First, is the danger of overvaluing the confession and placing Scripture in the role of servant to confession. Second, a danger exists in reading Scripture like a sourcebook where the goal is to find the correct passage to support a particular doctrine. To avoid both of these dangers, Bavinck believed, requires an adequate understanding of the relationship of Scripture to confession. In his account, both of these positions under-​realize the role of Scripture in a dogmatic system and lead to heresy. During his discussion of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church, Bavinck argued that philosophical reasoning did not add anything essential to the church’s Trinitarian theology and ‘the Trinity was not born from philosophical reasoning about the nature of God’.30 With this, Bavinck gestured toward what is perhaps an overgeneralization in which ‘orthodox’ Trinitarian theology starts from Scripture while ‘unorthodox’ Trinitarian theology starts from philosophy. This is a line of argumentation which is also found in Irenaeus’ work against the Gnostics, who he contended misread Scripture because they ‘gather their views from other 28 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 98; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64–​65. 29 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 267. In this section Bavinck used the phrase ‘dicta probantia’ which appears to be a reference to the Swedish Lutheran theologian, Emanuel Swedenborg. One can see Swedenborg’s name occur in many places throughout Bavinck’s work. While this is not definitive proof that Bavinck read Swedenborg, it at least shows that he was familiar with Swedenborg’s work. Therefore, it does not seem outside the realm of possibility that this particular reference is a veiled jab at Swedenborg’s unpublished Dicta Probantia which was a collection of various proof texts on church doctrines. See: Emanuel Swedenborg, Scripture confirmations of New Church doctrine: Dicta probantia, trans. John Whitehead (London: Swedenborg Society, 1962). 30 Bavinck, GD2, 246; RD2, 280.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  141 sources than the Scriptures’ and then force those views into what Scripture says.31 Bavinck saw this same thing happen in his own day with the theology of Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, Schelling, Strauss, etc.32 To guard against both of these errors Chapter 2 explored Bavinck’s use of the concept of αύτόπιστος. Bavinck deployed this concept as a substitute for ultimate authority. Scripture is the only thing that is αύτόπιστος. Unlike confessions, Scripture must be believed on its own account.33 There is no authority that norms Scripture. Confession plays a ministerial role in dogmatics. Scripture has the magisterial role. Likewise, Holy Scripture is not merely the norma but it is the defined principle, the source of theology, by which it stands or falls. Neither feeling nor reason, church nor confession, Pope nor council can ever be the principle of faith, unless this ceases to be what it is in essence.34

Accordingly, for Bavinck, it is Scripture, not the church, that is self-​ authenticating and, therefore, the ultimate authority. Every theological method requires some source that is αύτόπιστος. Bavinck held that for Rome the church was αύτόπιστος.35 However, Reformed theology required that the Scriptures alone be αύτόπιστος.36 These issues arise from the question of how one avoids a purely relativistic or individualistic understanding of Scripture. On the surface, it would 31 Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, vol. 1, trans. Dominic Unger and John Dillon (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), I.8. 32 Bavinck, RD2 294–​295; GD2, 260–​262. 33 One argument could be raised against Bavinck’s reasoning in which it would seem that he is always reasoning from the top-​down with regard to the role of the Bible in theological methodology. While Bavinck, himself, may not have been cognisant of this (and due to the fact that they were not even developed at the time it may be anachronistic to apply this), it might be said that there is a sense in which Bavinck’s conception of αύτόπιστος and the Bible’s place in theological methodology assumed a form of Kurt Gödel’s ‘incompleteness theorems’. In these theorems Gödel asserted that any logical system is necessarily dependent upon propositions which cannot be proven within the logical system. Thus, with this Gödel dismantled much of logical positivism and the work of Frege. His theorems also became the basis for Alan Turing’s ‘Turing Machine’ which are dependent on an oracle outside the machine to program them. See: ‘Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematic und verwandter Systeme I’, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 (1931), 173–​ 198; cf. Rebecca Goldstein, Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel (New York: W.W. Norton, 2005). 34 Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid, 17. Dutch: Zoo is dan de H. Schrift niet slechts norma, maar bepaald beginsel, kenbron der Theologie, waarmede deze staat of valt. Gevoel noch rede, kerk noch belijdenis, Paus noch concilie kunnen immer het beginsel zijn van het geloof en zijn inhoud, tenzij dit ophoudt te zijn wat het wezenlijk is. 35 Bavinck, RD4, 311; GD4, 296. 36 Henk van den Belt, The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 250–​262.

142  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck appear that Rome had safeguarded against this by supplementing Scripture with an authoritative interpretation of Scripture. In doing this it seems that Rome was able to avoid the charge of subjectivity in dogmatics. However, Bavinck contended that Rome was no less immune to the charge of subjectivity than Protestantism.37 In both the Protestant and Catholic churches the personality of the theologian influences theological reflection. While the danger is more apparent in Protestant theology, he thought it nonetheless exists to an equal extent in Catholic theological reflection. Thus, the question of a guard against relativism becomes one which every theological tradition must take up. Bavinck’s reading of the Reformed tradition was such that the safeguard against a purely subjective and individualistic reading of Scripture was never to read Scripture outside the community of the church, particularly the church embodied in creeds and confessions. Dogmatics is done best when it is done in the context of the church.38 Included in this is the historic church throughout the ages, down to each theologian’s particular tradition allowing this tradition to function as a guide to the reading of the text. Obviously, there is still the possibility of error in this. Nevertheless, there is no perfect safeguard against error, but the possibility is lessened when theology is done this way.39 In this, some will be brilliant theologians that will help develop theology (i.e., Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas) and others will be able to see the moments when it is necessary to break with tradition; bringing the church back to Scripture (i.e., the Reformers). But what was given by God to a select few, was not given to all. Genius is rare, even in theology. Productive spirits are an exception. The majority are 37 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 269. 38 This does not mean that Bavinck thought theology could not be done in the university. In fact, he explicitly argued for locating scientific theology in the academy. He made this argument in his inaugural speech upon taking a professorship at the Free University in Amsterdam, Religion and Theology. In it he contended that church has survived for centuries without theological scholarship, ‘For centuries long, the church has existed without theological scholarship, and thousands of pious still live who have no concept of theology and no desire to practise it’. (English: 124; Dutch: 53) However, in the modern university science cannot survive without theology because it is the discipline that holds together all the various disciplines in the university not allowing them to dissolve into positivism (English: 90; Dutch: 12). ‘It is theology that maintains in the sphere of the sciences the sense of spiritual things, the faith in a different and better world than this material one, the love for a supernaturally radiant and imperishable truth and beauty—​in one word, a healthy, powerful idealism’. (English: 123; Dutch: 52) Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology: An Introduction’, Reformed Theological Review 77:2 (2018); Bavinck, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid. 39 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 269. Eglinton makes a similar connection to epistemic humility and theological reasoning. See: James Eglinton, ‘Vox Theologiiae: Boldness and Humility in Public Theological Speech’, International Journal of Public Theology 9 (2015), 5–​28.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  143 only able to take in and reflect on what others have thought. This is why it is desirable to read and examine the Scriptures by way of confession and take your lead from the dogmatic and theological reflection of the common Christian church.40

In making this distinction Bavinck is reflecting something close to what Kuyper asserted in his Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid where he asserted, ‘Thomas (Aquinas) is the ‘Doctor’, like Augustine is the ‘Pater ecclesiae’, on whom all the branches of the Christian church still depend, and whose ecumenical significance no theologian of any orientation can ever overlook with impunity’.41 In volume three of the same work, Kuyper would connect this idea of ‘doctor’ of the church and ‘pater’ of the church to an analogy of goldsmithing and goldmining. The ‘pater’ was a goldminer. The pater of the church would be able to bring to light important theological concepts without being able to develop the intricate systems much like a goldminer brings the gold up from the ground. The doctors of the church take what has been unearthed and form it into an intricate system with ‘sharp lines and completeness’.42 Bavinck is able to follow Kuyper in these differentiations because of his understanding of the nature of the church as the body of Christ. As Bavinck read Rome’s position, whether consciously or unconsciously, Rome held that the church could not err.43 Bavinck’s interpretation of Rome’s doctrine was that the church’s interpretation is infallible. ‘The Reformation, however, adopted another position. It did not reject all tradition as such; it was reformation, not revolution’.44 The Reformers believed that the church could err, yet it was the Body of Christ in which the Spirit of Christ dwelt, leading it into 40 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 270. Dutch: Maar wat alzoo door God aan enkele uitverkorenen werd geschonken, was niet eene gave aan allen. Genieën zijn zeldzaam, ook in de theologie. Productieve geesten zijn eene uitzondering. De meesten zijn slechts in staat, om in zich op te nemen en na te denken wat anderen hebben voorgedacht. En daarom was het wenschelijk om de Schrift te lezen en te onderzoeken aan de hand der confessie, en bij den dogmatischen arbeid zich te laten leiden door de theologie der algemeene christelijke Kerk. 41 Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, vol. 1 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1908), 103. Thomas is de ‘Doctor’ gelijk Augustinus de ‘Pater ecclesiae’ op wien nog steeds alle afdeelingen der Christelijke Kerk zich beroepen, en wiens oecumenische beteekenis geen theoloog, van welke richting ook, ooit straffeloos voorbijziet. 42 Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, vol. 3 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1909), 389; cf. James Eglinton, ‘Thomas in Abraham’s Bosom: The Reception of Aquinas in Kuyper’s Encyclopedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Thomas Aquinas, eds. Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested (Oxford: Oxford University Press: forthcoming). 43 Bavinck, RD1, 483; GD1, 453–​454. 44 Bavinck, RD1, 493; GD1, 464.

144  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck all truth.45 There may be moments where the church needs a course correction, however, it requires much wisdom and discernment to know when and how to break with the received understanding of a doctrine. For Bavinck, few theologians have the intellectual capacity to make these judgements, and, thus, most theologians humbly take their lead from the church. These few theological geniuses, however, never made a clean break with history, but stood on the shoulders of those who went before them.46 It is possible to see Bavinck’s reasoning play out in an instance surrounding one of Bavinck’s former students and a bright young clergy member in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, Rev. J.B. Netelenbos.47 In August of 1920, the Reformed Church in the Netherlands held a Synod in Leeuwarden. While a number of issues which Bavinck judged as tertiary (i.e., dancing, theatre, and cards) were on the docket, a pressing challenge which the synod faced was, in Bavinck’s estimation, the views of Netelenbos concerning the authority of Scripture. This conflict was particularly important for Bavinck as Netelenbos had attached his views to Bavinck’s own. Utilizing Bavinck’s construction of what Bavinck dubbed ‘organic inspiration’ in which the humanity and divinity of Scripture were both preserved and united, Netelenbos argued that the humanity allowed for the form and content of Scripture to be fallible. Netelenbos was ultimately deposed for his positions. This experience shook Bavinck. Netelenbos’ position was a serious concern for Bavinck, and Bavinck wrote to Netelenbos expressing his sympathies for his argumentation. In these correspondences Bavinck asserted that Scripture was ‘weak’ and ‘totally human from beginning to end’ when it is considered in human form.48 Nevertheless, Bavinck also stressed that it was also completely divine. Thus, leaning on a Christological analogy, in its humanity it was weak and vulnerable while also remaining the very Word of God in human form. For Netelenbos, the fragility of Scripture implied the

45 Bavinck, RD1, 493–​494; GD1, 464–​465. 46 Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, eds. and trans. Cameron D. Clausing and Gregory Parker Jr. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2019), 13, 64. 47 My reading of this controversy follows Eglinton. For more on this controversy see: James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 285–​ 287; George Harinck, Cornelis van der Kooi, and Jasper Vree, eds., “Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende”: Aantekeningen van H. Bavinck over de zaak-​Netelenbos, het Schriftgezag en de Situatie van de Gereformeerde Kerken (November 1919) (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 1994). My reading of the controversy follows Eglinton here. 48 Harinck, van der Kooi, and Vree, eds., “Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende,” 58. Dutch: De vorm is totaal menschelijk, van begin tot einde.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  145 ability to err. Bavinck’s understanding of all this was that Netelenbos’ position compromised Scripture’s divine authority. Even while maintaining private sympathies and recognizing the challenges that his view of inspiration carried, Bavinck, as a member of a denominational committee recommended that the confessional standards relating to the inspiration and authority of Scripture be expanded.49 Bavinck thought that the best way forward was to move backward and rest on divine authority. No matter how much the position brought conflict, Bavinck could not let go of the central affirmation, Deus dixit.50 Even in 1920, Bavinck’s statement to Snouck Hurgronje in 1883 was true, he was ‘in no way finished with his doctrine of Scripture’.51 In all of this, Bavinck demonstrated that theological genius does not provoke radical change but reformation and strengthening of what already stands. This leads to the question of how bound a theologian should be to the church confession. There seems to be a sense in which Bavinck would recommend a strong connection between the theologian and ecclesiastical confession. In fact, he said as much early in his career (1881): ‘Dogmatics is nothing other than the scientific description of the confession of the church’.52 This goes to Bavinck’s belief that dogmatics cannot be strictly biblical. As was stated earlier, his argument was that Scripture contains no dogmatics but also because dogmatics is inherently a public profession of what is believed. Therefore, what in theology and the church turns a doctrine into a dogma, is not the ecclesiastical establishment and not the confession but Holy Scripture. If something was established a thousand times by the church, but

49 Herman Bavinck, ‘RAPPORT in zake de voorstellen der Pariculiere Synodes rakende de Belijdenis’, Acta der generale synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, gehouden te Leeuwarden van 24 augustus—​9 september 1920, 152–​154. 50 Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek: Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 2003), 175–​225, 233–​284. 51 Eglinton, Bavinck, 285–​288. Een Leidse vriendschap: De Briefwisseling tussen Herman Bavinck en Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje 1875–​1921, eds. J. de Bruin and G. Harinck (Baarn: Ten Have, 1999), 111–​112. Dutch: Er moet nog iets bij: met mijne Schrifbeschouwing ben ik dus volstrekt nog niet klaar. Curiously it seems that an argument can be made that the entire conflict is being fought on a false premise and, yet, Bavinck appears either unaware or unwilling to make this contention. Netelenbos contended that an embrace of the humanity, that is the fragility, of the Biblical text opened it up for error. After all, as the well-​known proverb goes, ‘to err is human’. However, confessing the humanity of the text does not necessarily mean a confession of the fallibility of the text but the finitude of the text. To be human does not mean to be fallible but to be finite. Taking this approach, then, it does not mean that Scripture is fallible, but that it is not infinite (i.e., Scripture is not God). 52 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 94; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 60.

146  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck it did not have a foundation in the Holy Scripture then it is not a dogma that it may bind the conscience and demand faith or obedience. That is why one must distinguish between what is factual and what is rightfully a dogma.53

Ten years after writing of the importance of a confessional connection to theological reflection, Bavinck softens his position somewhat in his Reformed Dogmatics. While still seeing the importance of a confessional commitment and confessional reading, he is interested in giving a theologian more independence.54 ‘In a formal sense, there are no dogmas in Scripture, but the material for them is all to be found in it. Hence dogmatics can be defined as the truth of Scripture, absorbed and reproduced by the thinking consciousness of the Christian theologian’.55 While Bavinck clearly sees a role for confession in theological reflection, there is a tension for Bavinck still on the confession’s authority over the theologian. While Bavinck uses the concept of organicism to bring unity to diversity, it still cannot fully resolve the tension that he knew inherently exists in a Protestant theological method. Confession bears some authority, yet only Scripture can bind the conscience.56 However, according to Bavinck, the relationship between the church and Scripture can only be understood through these three interconnected threads: the work of the Holy Spirit, the Scripture as αύτόπιστος, and the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. Filling out that picture even more, the way in which Bavinck understood the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of individual theologians must be added. For Bavinck, the Holy Spirit works in the theologian to produce proper exegetical humility.57 Bavinck argued this would curb the individualistic tendencies and each theologian would be 53 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 266. Dutch: Datgene dus, wat in theologie en kerk eene of andere leer tot dogma maakt, is niet de kerkelijke vaststelling en niet de confessie, maar alleen de H. Schrift. Al was iets duizendmaal door de kerk vastgesteld, maar het heeft geen steun in de H. Schrift, dan is het geen dogma, dat de gewetens mag binden en geloof of gehoorzaamheid mag eischen. Maar daarom moet men onderscheiden tusschen wat feitelijk en wat rechtens een dogma is. 54 Bavinck’s argument here is tied to his understanding of a scientific theology. He did not believe that science could be done without some sort of religious commitment. Nevertheless, religion could survive without science. ‘For centuries long, the church has existed without theological scholarship, and thousands of pious still live who have no concept of theology and no desire to practise it’. (Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 124.) However, there is a reciprocity between theology and religion. It is not a mother–​daughter relationship but a relationship between sisters. There is a ‘mutual independence’. ‘Mutual independence does not, however, ultimately nullify reciprocal relationship and cooperation. Religion and theology are two. Whoever confuses or mingles them does injury to them both. Nevertheless, they are most closely bound to one another. They share the same blood’. (Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 126.) 55 Bavinck, RD1, 89; GD1, 66. 56 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 266–​267. 57 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 130.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  147 cautious when breaking with tradition.58 Nevertheless, this was not a guarantee of ecclesiological unity. ‘That is the weakness but at the same time the glory of Protestantism. That everyone must make up their own mind before God’.59 In Protestant theology, only God is able to bind the conscience, and thus neither church nor confession has the prerogative of demanding subscription. Subscription to a confession must be taken up freely.60 Confession plays a ministerial role in theology. Scripture by virtue of it being the Word of God, for Bavinck, plays the magisterial role. Only Scripture demands and deserves the theologian’s ultimate allegiance. All four of these (αύτόπιστος, perspicuity, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual theologian) come together to give form to the interplay between church confession and Scripture for Bavinck. Yet, the question remains: what is the relation between the practice of constructive theological reflection and church confession? This question is important because the answer to it will give a vision of how Bavinck interacted with history in his day. Thus, it will play into the larger argument of this book regarding the role of historicism in Bavinck’s theological methodology. It is to this question that the rest of this chapter turns. First it will explore the immediate theological context in which Bavinck found himself and his interaction with that context (i.e., Dutch Reformed theology). Next the chapter will turn to how Bavinck engaged with the wider Christian tradition to develop his Trinitarian theology. All of this comes together to form the larger argument of the chapter, that ecclesiastical confession holds a ministerial authority over Bavinck’s theological methodology.

Confession: Bavinck and the Dutch Reformed Tradition On 1 November 1880, Bavinck, at that time a recent doctoral graduate who was about to move into pastoral ministry, made his way to Leiden. He went there to sign the contract making him the editor of the sixth edition of the Synopsis purioris theologiae. He recorded the moment in his diary, writing, ‘9AM to Leiden to discuss the publication of the Synopsis with D. Donner. This edition will be published under my supervision; honorarium 150 guilders 58 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 263, 269, 271. 59 Ibid., 271. Dutch: Dat is de zwakheid, maar tegelijkertijd de roem van het Protestantisme. Dat moet elk uitmaken in zijne conscientie voor God. 60 Ibid., 271.

148  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck and 20% of each copy from 300-​500. Afternoon back to Kampen’.61 Bavinck’s edition would be the first new edition to come out in nearly 230 years (ed. 5 in 1658). Thus, one can only imagine his surprise when reading the newspaper, De Standaard, a few months after signing this contract that another publisher, Rutger, had signed Abraham Kuyper to pursue the same project.62 While not an uncommon occurrence at the time, Bavinck still felt the need to write to Kuyper expressing his sentiment. He said: ‘This piece of news surprised me and was not particularly welcome to me’.63 Kuyper agreed to step aside and not edit the new edition, giving the job to Bavinck and the sole publishing responsibilities to Donner. This episode in Bavinck’s life demonstrates a few important things. First, as we saw in Chapter 1, the nineteenth century was a time when history, as a science, was coming into its own. Bavinck’s response to this historical turn was mixed. While he embraced the historical turn, he also recognized that which was lost with the destruction of universal history. Bavinck’s relationship to the Leiden Synopsis demonstrates the influence of the historical turn on Bavinck, yet his view of history, with Christ as its centre, shows how he had not fully embraced historicism and a historiography which focused on particularity and positivist tendencies. Bavinck believed that history could teach universal truths. Because of this influence, he attempted to retrieve historical theological texts while also borrowing from late Romantic idealism in the vein of Trendelenburg and Lotze mediated through people like Dilthey and Eucken. This points to an emphasis on the rise of historical consciousness. For Bavinck, to accomplish the task of his dogmatic project, he needed the resources of prior generations. Second, the episode shows Bavinck’s commitment to understand and engage with his Dutch reformed theological tradition better. At the beginning of his career Bavinck took seriously the attitude of needing to do exegetical theology through the lens of one’s historical confession.64 The editing of the Leiden Synopsis was the only academic project with which he engaged

61 Herman Bavinck, ‘1878 tot 1886’, Box 346, folder 16 (Archive of Herman Bavinck, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands). [Hereafter: no. 16, Archive of Herman Bavinck]. Dutch: ‘’s morg. 9 uur naar Leiden, om met D. Donner te spreken over de uitgave der “Synopsis”. Deze uitgave zal verschijnen onder mijn toezicht; honorarium 150 gld. en 20% v. elk exemplaar van 300–​500. ‘s middags weer naar Kampen’. 62 De Standaard 5 April 1881. 63 Cited in R.H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck en Zijn Tijdgenoten (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1966), 33. Dutch: Dit bericht verraste mij en deed me niet bijzonder aangenaam aan. 64 Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, 270.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  149 immediately after finishing his doctorate. As he edited it, he wrote to his friend Christiaan Snouck Hurgonje: I have, for some time, now taken upon myself the sixth edition of the Synopsis purioris theologie of Walaeus, et al. which Donner has recently published. I did this to make a study of some reformed theology. I now am more at home there than previously. It has had quite an impact on my own theological conception. I, myself, would say an auspicious one. You may judge it differently perhaps. Clearer than previously, I see that between (let me use familiar terms) Reformation and Revolution, on every domain, in both principle and method, in the view of God, men, the word, etc. every Vermittelung or reconciliation is impossible.65

For Bavinck, the first step in his theological development was to know his tradition personally. This meant engaging with sources coming out of the Dutch Reformed tradition, specifically looking at the early modern period in which the Leiden Synopsis and many other confessional documents arose.66 To understand Bavinck’s engagement with the Synopsis better, it is necessary

65 Een Leidse vriendschap,100. Dutch: Ik heb voor eenigen tijd de zorg op mij genomen voor de zesde uitgave der Synopsis purioris theologiae van Walaeus c.s. die onlangs bij Donner verschenen is. Ik deed dit, om daarbij wat studie te maken van de gereformeerde theologie. Daar ben ik nu wat beter in thuis als vroeger. En het heeft op mijn eigen theologische zienswijze nogal invloed gehad. Ik zeg zelf, een gunstigen. U zou het misschien anders voorkomen. Helderder dan weleer zie ik in, dat tusschen (laat mij de bekende termen gebruiken) Reformatie en Revolutie, op elk terrrerin, in beginsel en methode beide, in de beschouwing van God, mensch, wereld enz. elke ‘Vermittelung’ of verzoening onmogelijk is. While this comment sounds like Bavinck did not know the Reformed tradition well before engaging with the Leiden Synopsis, the very next letter from Snouck Hurgronje to Bavinck tells a different story. Snouck Hurgronje responds to Bavinck, arguing that Bavinck may feel more comfortable, but that in reality his theology was always deeply rooted in Reformed orthodoxy. It seems, at least from Snouck Hurgronje’s perspective, that Bavinck had never actually left home theologically. Eglinton argues that Bavinck’s comment was that it’s not about reformed theology in some general sense, but the kind of early modern Dutch Reformed thought that animated Seceder piety. He hadn’t learned it at Leiden and he hadn’t actually taken any classes in Kampen (despite passing their exit exams), so he needed to learn it before he could minister in Franeker. See: Een Leidse vriendschap, 101–​102; Eglinton, Bavinck, 111–​113. 66 For the purposes of the present project the ‘early modern’ period will be defined as the period near the end French Wars of Religion (1598) and the Congress of Vienna (1815) or more exactly 1600–​1800. See: Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber, ‘Introduction’ in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800, eds. Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A.G. Roeber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1. This section will explore the development of theology in the Netherlands among the Dutch in this time period for the purpose of considering Bavinck’s own appropriation of this early modern theology. Special consideration will be given to the production and reception of the Synopsis purioris theologiae because of Bavinck’s direct connection to this document as an eventual editor of it.

150  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck to grasp the context in which the Synopsis was written and how Bavinck evaluated its reception in history. Seventeenth-​century Dutch history has been considered the ‘Golden Age’. Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801–​1876), Dutch historian, politician, and forefather of Kuyper and Bavinck’s anti-​Revolutionary political movement, considered the theological developments of this time to be a ‘second Israel’ due to the great blessings he saw: the theological developments in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century arose alongside intellectual, technological, and cultural advances.67 This reality allowed for a country in which a proto-​pluralism could grow and at the same time a rigorously refined version of Calvinism would flourish.68 While the Dutch church landscape in the seventeenth century was one of pluriformity with Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and Lutherans free to worship, the degree of pluriformity should not be overstated. ‘The Reformed church—​in its diversity—​was the only national organization in the Republic that received from the government great potential to act as a unifying factor in seventeenth-​century culture’.69 The importance of the Reformed church in the Netherlands as a unifying institution for the nation is demonstrated in the controversy that arose early in the seventeenth century surrounding Jacob Arminius. In an effort to resolve the controversy surrounding Arminius and his followers (the Remonstrants) a Synod was convened in Dordrecht.70 The result of this Synod were five canons which were adopted and refuted the doctrinal positions put forth by the Remonstrants. These canons were given the status of a confessional document in the Dutch Reformed church alongside the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, forming has been

67 G. Groen van Prinsterer, Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland (Gravenhage: D.A. Daamen, 1872), §105. As Bavinck progressed in his career, he would become more critical of van Prinsterer. See: Eglinton, Bavinck, 230–​231. 68 J.I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall (Oxford: Clarion, 1995); W. Frijhoff and M. Spies, 1650: Hard-​Won Unity (Palgrave-​Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2004); A.Th. van Deursen, Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion and Society in Seventeenth-​century Holland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 69 Willem J. van Asselt and Paul H.A.M. Abels, ‘The Seventeenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 261. 70 Carl Bang, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Abingdon: Nashville, 1971); Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Keith D. Stanglin, ‘Arminius and Arminians: An Over of Current Research’ in Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe eds. Th. Marius van Leeuwen, Keith D. Stanglin, and Marijke Tolsma (Leiden: Brill, 2009); A. Th. van Deursen, Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen. Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1974); A. Th. van Deursen, Maurits van Nassau 1567–​1625. De winnaar die faalde (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2000); H.J.M. Nellen, Hugo de Groot. Een leven in strijd om de vrede 1583–​1645 (Amsterdam: Balans, 2007).

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  151 called the ‘Three Forms of Unity’.71 With the Canons of Dordrecht now integrated into the confessional statements of the Dutch Reformed church, the theological faculty at Leiden set out to demonstrate their unity with each other and to explicate the conclusions reached at the Synod.72 This prompted them to engage in a series of disputations at the University of Leiden. These disputations were held from 1620 to 1624 and first published in 1625 with four subsequent editions in the next thirty-​three years.73 The document they produced was named the Synopsis purioris theologiae. With Dort rejecting the Remonstrants’ theology (which found its historic roots in the University of Leiden), members of the theological faculty were replaced and the following year a new disputation cycle commenced. On the theological faculty this time were Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, and Antonius Thysius. In 1620 the faculty would publish a catalogue of disputations to be undertaken that year.74 This would be the basic outline for the 52 disputations that make up the Synopsis. The cycle of disputations would begin in February 1620. Polyander, Walaeus, and Thysius presided over the first nine disputations in that order. Then in the autumn of 1620, Andreas Rivetus joined the theology faculty and the cycles of disputations.75 The original plans appear to have been that the full cycle of disputations would take two years, however, it lasted four.76 In 1624 the cycle of disputations was over and in 1625 it was published as the Synposis purioris theologiae. The idea behind the name being that the Leiden theology faculty had purified Reformed theology of its errors. The same series of disputations would be repeated in the following years until 1639.77

71 Donald Sinnema, ‘The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard’ in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt, eds. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 324–​325. 72 According to Walaeus’ son, the theology faculty were interested not only in preserving unity but also in avoiding the appearance of division. This led them to consult with each other on any controversy before giving their public disputation. When agreement could not be reached, the theses of the disputation were not taken up. See: Johannes Walaeus, ‘Vita Antonii Walaei’ in Antonius Walaeus, Opera Omnia, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1647), 1:[27]. 73 The first edition came out in 1625, subsequent editions appeared in 1632, 1642, 1652, and 1658. 74 Polyander, ‘Catalogus disputationum facultatis theologicae inchoatarum mense Ianuario, Anni 1620’ in Orationes inaugurales a ss. theologiae professoribus & collegii illust. ordinum Hollandiae & West Frisiae moderatoribus habitae (Leiden: Jaboci Marci, 1620), 3–​4. 75 Dolf te Velde, ‘Introduction’ in Synopsis purioris theologiae/​Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1, eds. Dolf te Velde, Willem J. van Asselt, William den Boer, and Riemer A. Faber, trans. Riemer A. Faber (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1–​2. 76 Sinnema and van den Belt, ‘The Synopsis’, 519. 77 Ibid., 524.

152  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Bavinck observed in the introduction to his sixth edition that shortly after the Synopsis was published it was adopted as a textbook for theology students.78 However, the Synopsis was originally never intended to be used as a textbook. The original plan which gave rise to the Synopsis was an outline for a cycle of public disputations to be held in order to exercise the debating skills of Leiden theology students on dogmatic topics. The four professors drew up their theses on various topics for this immediate purpose, and it appears that only when the publication of the complete cycle was contemplated did they realize that the cycle, as a unified body of orthodox Reformed doctrine, could well serve as a model for future students of Reformed theology.79

Nevertheless, for fifty years following the first publication of the Synopsis, the work functioned as the manual for theological education in the Netherlands. Nineteenth-​century Dutch church historian Christiaan Sepp noted: [U]‌ntil the middle of the 17th century in the Netherlands, the Theologia purior as it was made known in the Leiden Synopsis dominated. There was neither life nor movement; the Synopsis was reprinted but not changed, repeated but not improved. . . The fortunes of the manual, that remained authoritative for so long—​because I know of no other [book] here in this country that has gone through five editions—​are more than contributions to the history of a book. They gave us the means to know the way of religious and theological thinking and to shine a bright light on the fact that since 1658, the Synopsis has lost its influence, because other needs arose which it could not meet.80 78 Herman Bavinck, ‘Introduction’ in Synopsis purioris theologiae (Leiden: Donner, 1881), v. Latin: ‘Synopsis, in lucem vix prolata, regina doctrinae Reformatae creata videtur. Erat enim enchiridium studiosis theologiae suave et commodum, breve, lucem claram afferens multis ac variis rebus, controversias cum Remonstrantibus et Pontificiis acute, subtiliter ac perspicue sed tamen sine ira et studio exponens et persequens, ac denique conscriptum per quatuor professores, qui fiducia et amore Ecclesiae gaudentes tum ob pietatem tum ob doctrinam ab omnibus fere colebantur’. 79 Sinnema and van den Belt, ‘The Synopsis’, 526–​527. 80 Christiaan Sepp, Het Godgeleerd Onderwijs in Nederland, Gedurende de 16e en 17e eeuw, vol. 2 (Breuk en Smits: Leiden, 1873), 93. Dutch: ‘De loop der zaken bidt ons hier een rustpunt aan; tot het midden der 17e eeuw heerschte in Nederland de theologia purior zooals zij door de Leidsche synopsis verkondigd werd. Leven en beweging was er niet; de synopsis werd herdrukt maar niet veranderd, herhaald maar niet verbeterd . . . . . . . De lotgevallen van het handbook, dat zoolang zijn gezag behield—​want ik ken geen ander, dat hier te lande vijf uitgaven beleefd heeft—​zijn meer dan bijdragen tot de geschiedenis van een boek; zij leveren ons het middle, om den gang van het godsdienstig en godgeleerd denken te kennen en doen helder licht opgaan over het feit, dat die

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  153 Sepp provides a helpful glimpse into what he argued was the general view as to the role of the Synopsis. Even though it was not originally set out as a manual for theology, it quickly became as such. Due to the clear and concise nature of the work itself, the Synopsis became an easy way to teach different theological loci. Thus, shortly after it was published it became the theology textbook among the Dutch Reformed. However, as new philosophical concepts started to influence Dutch theology, namely Cartesian thinking, the challenges to theology changed, and the place of the Synopsis transformed with it. This development led theologians to consider different methods. Bavinck stated, ‘The long-​lasting dominion of this Synopsis also faded. Another time calls for something else. Coccejus and other theologians introduced another method, and the Synopsis was gradually forgotten’.81 The Synopsis as a manual may have fallen into disuse, but its importance continued. It was the first work to lay out in a systematic way the theology embodied in the high orthodoxy of Dort.82 Thus, even when it was no longer used as a theological textbook, its continued influence on the theological development of Dutch Reformed thought cannot be underestimated. Yet, as Bavinck asserted, times changed. The philosophical and theological questions being asked had transformed, and the Leiden Synopsis was set aside for other explications of the Reformed thought which better engaged with the questions being asked in the eighteenth century.83 As the seventeenth century gave way to the eighteenth century, the discord in the church and the close of the Dutch Golden Age, which meant marked cultural and economic upheaval led to a rise in pietism in the church, a movement that valued life over a ‘fossilized orthodoxy’ and requiring ‘a Spirit-​inspired practice of duty’.84 While one can observe twinges of this synopsis sinds 1658 haren invloed verloren heeft, dewijl andere behoeften zich deden gelden, waaraan zij niet meer kon voldoen’. 81 Bavinck, ’Introduction’, vi. Latin: ‘Transiit etiam Synopseos hujus imperium diuturnum. Aliud tempus aliud postulabat. Coccejus aliique theologi aliam methodum introduxerunt, et Synopsis paulatim in oblivionem abiit’. 82 Richard Muller considers high orthodoxy to spread over the greater part of the seventh century and first part of the eighteenth century. He puts the dates at 1640–​1725. See: Richard Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1502 to ca. 1725, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 31–​32. 83 Bavinck roots the eighteenth century shift away from the Synopsis in Dutch Reformed theology to the seventeenth century theologian, Johannes Cocceius (1603–​1669). His ‘biblical theology’ approach was set in contradistinction to Voetius (1589–​1676) and his doctrinal approach to theology. The Cocceian method led to a retreat ‘from the church’s confessions to Scripture’ and an abandonment of the ‘doctrines characteristic of the Reformed faith’. See: Bavinck, RD1, 189; GD1, 187–​188. 84 Paul H.A.M. Abels and Aart de Groot, ‘The Eighteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman Selderhuis (Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 371.

154  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck pietist tendency in Groningen, with their calls of ‘Not doctrine, but life! Not doctrine, but the Lord!’ pietism was not as pervasive in the universities in the Netherlands as in Germany in places like Halle and Tübingen. However, at the same time the rise of Cartesian philosophy changed the way in which one thought about God and the self. No longer was human thought to be grounded and evaluated by something outside of itself, namely revelation. Reason now grounded itself in itself. This important change came about under the influence of philosophy. The rationalism that Descartes spoke of in the philosophical realm, had made Natural Theology more independent of Revelation. Reason, which the Reformers placed under the discipline of faith, gradually gave up its obedience.85

A generation after Bavinck’s death, Eberhard Jüngel would note that one of the important consequences of this shift was that the old ways of doing theology could no longer function as self-​evidently appropriate in the modern world.86 Yet, in the midst of this situation Bavinck took on the Leiden Synopsis as his first substantial post-​doctorate academic project, stating in his introductory essay to it: Now, more than two hundred years after the last edition, this sixth one is being edited, in my opinion at a very favourable time. For the same principles of doctrine that have been confessed by the Seceded Reformed Church in our country for a long time, are beginning to revive outside of her too in these days.87

85 Bavinck, ‘Godgeleerheid en Godsdienstwetenschap’, De Vrije Kerk 18 (1892), 199; cf. ‘Theology and Religious Studies’ in Essays on Relgion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 50–​51. 86 Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 108. 87 Bavinck, ‘Introduction’, vi–​vii. Original Latin: ‘Nunc, plus quam ducentis annis post ultimam editionem, sexta haec editur, non inopportuno tempore, opinor. Quae enim Ecclesia Reformata Separata in patria nostra jam diu confessa est, eadem doctrinae principia hodie extra eam quoque reviviscere incipiunt’.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  155 Bavinck indicates that one of the factors that brought about this ‘very favourable time’ was the rise in ‘modern theology’.88 In his 1888 essay, ‘Modern Theology’ he states: Orthodoxy, finding no benefit in polemics, went about postulating; and in order to get out of the vague generalities, it courageously took up the line of history again; it sought out the support from before it that it could not find around it. And so it has come about that the Orthodox and Moderns, though sons of the same fatherland and children of the same Protestantism, are as good as wholly estranged from each other. Some time ago Prof. Schürer could reprimand Prof. Zöckler for taking the position of tradition in his Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, much like the Roman Catholics, and for simply ignoring the science of Critical Theology, as if he still live in the 17th century and nothing had happened. Conversely, Modern Theology can be charged with engaging orthodoxy at all; Prof. Rauwenhoff no longer mentions any works from that direction.89

Bavinck’s point is clear: those that wished to remain orthodox in his day found their way back to the old theology of the seventeenth century. That being said, Bavinck judged the attitude of acting ‘as it were still the 17th century’ having a negative impact on their theological reflection.90 For Bavinck (and reflecting the deep impact of historicism on him), the theologian went backwards to go forwards. George Harinck has observed that Bavinck’s theology demonstrates a deep indebtedness to Reformed orthodox sources.91 This dependence and 88 It is important to recall that for Bavinck ‘Modern theology’ (moderne theologie) was a distinct movement in the Netherlands which sought to secularize theology. See: Chapter 1 and K.H. Roessingh, ‘De moderne theologie in Nederland; hare voorbereiding en eerste period’ (Dissertation, Groningen, 1914). 89 Herman Bavinck, ‘Moderne Theologie’, De Vrije Kerk 14:6 (1888), 254. Dutch: De orthodoxie, bij het polemiseeren geen bate vindend, ging poneeren; en om uit de vage algemeenheden uit te komen, nam ze kloek de lijn der historie weer op; ze zocht achter zich den steun, dien ze om zich heen niet kon vinden. En zoo is het geschied, dat Orthodoxen en Modernen, ofschoon zonen van hetzelfde vaderland en kinderen saam van het Protestantisme, elkander zoo goed als geheel vreemd zijn geworden. Prof. Schürer kon voor eenigen tijd aan Prof. Zöckler verwijten, dat hij in de Commentaren op het O. en N. Test. zich evenals de Roomschen stelde op het standpunt der traditie; de wetenschap der Kritische Theologie eenvoudig negeerde en handelde alsof hij nog leefde in de 17e Eeuw en er niets was gebeurd. En omgekeerd kan aan de Moderne Theologie ten laste worden gelegd, dat zij met de orthodoxie zich bijna geheel niet meer inlaat; Prof. Rauwenhoff haalt geen enkel werk van die richting meer aan. 90 This will be explored further in Chapter 5. 91 George Harinck, ‘ “Something that must remain, if the truth is to be sweet and precious to us”: The Reformed spirituality of Herman Bavinck’, Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 261. John

156  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Bavinck’s own knowledge of the Dutch Reformed tradition can be traced back to various phases in his life. However, perhaps one of the most formative times was his work in the editing of the sixth edition of the Leiden Synopsis. In it he was brought back to the old orthodoxy of the Dutch Reformed tradition which would serve as a lens through which to read Scripture.92 This tradition did not add anything to revelation but it functioned to ground him in a particular method for reading and understanding revelation. Thus far, this chapter has progressed from an understanding of Bavinck’s view of the relationship between confession and Scripture to this section which dealt with Bavinck’s appropriation of his own tradition, early modern Dutch Reformed orthodoxy.93 This section focused on his first substantial project in his post-​doctorate years, the editing of the Leiden Synopsis. Through narrating Bavinck’s project connected to the Leiden Synopsis, this section has demonstrated how Bavinck positioned himself as both an appreciative appropriator and an analytic architect. In his own theological project, he built on the foundation of his tradition, but did not do so uncritically. He acknowledged when the times had changed, and those changes required fresh approaches to new questions. In doing this, this section has continued to form the argument of this chapter that, for Bavinck, ecclesiastical confession holds a ministerial authority over his theological methodology. The following section will offer the concluding piece of the argument, demonstrating how Bavinck developed his Trinitarian theology from the broader Christian tradition. This section continues the process of applying Bavinck’s own theological methodology to himself in a reverse engineering of his Trinitarian theology, helping to construct the larger argument of this thesis, namely, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of Bolt makes a similar observation in John Bolt, ‘The Bavinck Recipe for Theological Cake’, Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 11. 92 Bavinck cites the Leiden Synopsis in Reformed Dogmatics at RD1, 181, 415 (n. 50, 51), 456 (n. 17), 472 (n. 46), 481 (n. 63), 513 (n. 18), 536 (n. 82); RD2, 41 (n. 29), 190 (n. 46), 216 (n. 154), 249 (n. 255), 255 (n. 273), 301 (n. 103), 314 (n. 139), 329 (n. 212), 396 (n. 162), 398 (n. 164), 403 (n. 183), 421 (n. 53), 461 (n. 79), 550 (n. 64), 555 (n. 74), 560 (n. 79), 597 (n. 23), 598 (n. 26, 27); RD3, 128 (n. 4), 138 (n. 27), 188 (n. 69), 276 (n. 104), 380 (n. 171), 406 (n. 246), 472 (n. 151), 581 (n. 237); RD4, 34 (n. 1), 38 (n. 7), 40 (n. 10), 72 (n. 78), 80 (n. 104), 150 (n. 123), 175 (n. 206), 208 (n. 109), 224 (n. 146), 291 (n. 63), 316 (n. 164), 332 (n. 8), 372 (n. 87), 410 (n. 55), 411 (n. 58), 427 (n. 80), 434 (n. 93), 448 (n. 17), 451 (n. 23), 474 (n. 35), 478 (n. 44), 495 (n. 88), 536 (n. 103), 537 (n. 106), 611 (n. 19), 698 (n. 6), 702 (n. 7), 730 (n. 32). 93 While his Seceder tradition was not monolithically rooted in the Dutch Reformed orthodox tradition, the movement did find many of its theological resources springing out of it. For more on the relationship between Dutch Reformed orthodoxy and the Seceder movement see: Eglinton, Bavinck, 11–​15.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  157 historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck.

Confession: Bavinck and Trinitarian Retrieval According to Bavinck, Scripture does not contain any dogmas properly speaking. It contains the material for the construction of dogmas, but not the dogmas themselves. This can be clearly seen with Trinitarian theology. While the material for Trinitarian theology is in Scripture, and all of revelation bears a Trinitarian structure, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly laid out in Scripture with a formula of one God in three persons and the exact way this works itself out. Everything necessary for the construction of the doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture, yet it was necessary to ‘wait for a time when the power of Christian reason would be sufficiently developed to enter into the holy mystery that presents itself here’.94 After seeing that Bavinck engaged quite thoroughly with the Reformed tradition, it is helpful to note that he was not myopic in his consideration of this theological tradition. Bavinck developed his theology in a robustly catholic context, utilizing the broader tradition to construct his theological positions.95 Before moving on to the exact aspects of Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology which he retrieved from the church catholic, it is important to note that catholicity was an intentional part of Bavinck’s project. He envisioned his work as both Reformed and catholic, and held that catholicity is an essential aspect of the Reformed tradition. Referring to his own conception of the Reformed tradition in the ‘Foreword’ to the first edition of his Dogmatics, Bavinck wrote: This dogmatics, however, is most closely tied to that type of Christian religion and theology which was received in the sixteenth century through the Reformation, especially in Switzerland. Not because this is the only truth but according to the author’s conviction it is relatively the purest expression of the truth. In no other confession has Christianity in its religious, ethical, 94 Bavinck, RD2, 280; GD2, 246. 95 It should be noted here that this is not unique to Bavinck. One can look throughout Protestant theology to see Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and the works coming out of Protestant orthodoxy doing this same thing.

158  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck and theological character come into its own; nowhere is it so deep and broad, so spacious and free, so truly catholic as in the Reformed church.96

There are two things to note in this quotation. First, Bavinck located himself in a particular historic tradition. His catholicity did not require him to obscure his specific theological heritage. He was able to draw the line of theological heritage to its roots in the sixteenth-​century Protestant Reformation, and even more narrowly to the Reformation emerging from Switzerland. In this, Bavinck both connected himself to a theological tradition and to that tradition’s history. In Chapter 1 it was shown that the historicist project emphasized particularity. Bavinck observed this in leading historicists, such as Windelband and Rickert, stating, ‘the historical sciences do not search out the universal but the particular, das Einmalige (the singular), and they have their strength in the realizing power of conception; they have an ideographic character’.97 In his historical consciousness, Bavinck located himself inside the Dutch Reformed tradition and from a specific arm of it, the Seceder movement. This type of particularity in Bavinck’s thinking demonstrates one of the ways in which historicism impacted Bavinck’s theological project. The second important point to observe is that for Bavinck, ecumenical engagement was positively an essential part of being Reformed. In fact, as will be demonstrated at the end of this chapter and into the next, Bavinck’s ecumenical engagement in reading, befriending, and working alongside non-​reformed thinkers allowed him to conceive of theological development.98 This, in turn, caused Bavinck to argue for the necessity of engaging with ‘Irenaeus, Augustine, and Thomas’ (to name a few) because they ‘do not belong to Rome alone’.99 Nevertheless, it was not an uncritical adoption. Once more, this emphasis on a critical universality can be traced back to the 96 Herman Bavinck, ‘Voorbrecht’ in Gereformeerde dogmatiek, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1895), iv; cf. ‘Herman Bavinck, “Foreword to the First Edition (Volume 1) of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek” ’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 9–​10. Dutch: Het nauwst sluit echter deze dogmatiek zich aan bij dat type, hetwelk de christelijke religie en theologie in de zestiende eeuw door de Reformatie, bepaaldelijk in Zwitserland, ontving. Niet omdat dit de eenig-​ware, maar wijl het naar de overtuiging van den schrijver de relatief-​zuiverste uitdrukking der waarheid is. In geen confessie is het christelijke in zijn religieus, ethisch en theologisch karakter zoo tot zijn recht gekomen; nergens is het zoo diep en breed, zoo ruim en vrij, zoo waarlijk katholiek opgevat als in die van de Gereformeerde kerken. 97 Herman Bavinck, Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition, eds. Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), 104. 98 For more on the ecumenism of Bavinck in his personal interactions see: Eglinton, Bavinck. 99 Bavinck, ‘Voorbrecht’, iii; ‘Foreword’, 9. Dutch: Mannen als Irenaeus, Augustinus, Thomas, behooren niet uitsluitend aan Rome. Zij zijn patres en doctores, aan wie de gansche christelijke kerk verplichtingen heeft.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  159 influence of late Romantic idealism’s interaction with historicism. This was mediated to Bavinck through Dilthey and Eucken. This is stated particularly clearly early in Bavinck’s career, in his 1888 address ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’ at the Theological School in Kampen. In this address Bavinck referred to the Apostles’ Creed as the confession of all of Christendom.100 Then he defined his understanding of catholicity with three assertions: 1) the church as a unified whole, 2) the church as inclusive of all believers from every nation, in all times and places, and 3) the church as it embraces the whole of human experience.101 The implicit assumption made in these three statements is that the church catholic also has a catholic faith. He went on to note that it is in the light of the resurrection that the catholic faith flourishes and grows like a mustard seed that has been planted in the ground. A Gospel so rich created a people of God that no longer could be contained within the boundaries of one nation and country. In the death of Christ all that which is typical and prophetic, priest and sacrifice, law and shadow, even Israel herself finds its fulfillment. The cross of Christ reconciles all things—​God and humanity, heaven and earth, Jew and Gentile, barbarian and Scythian, man and woman, slave and free.102

Thus, what becomes clear is that Bavinck was both concerned with fidelity to his own particular tradition but also alert to and relying on the broader Christian tradition. His theological proclivity made him a Reformed irenic, or as Eglinton has said, ‘Bavinck was a Reformed catholic’.103 In his systematic works, Bavinck began with a presentation of the Biblical material for the construction of Trinitarian dogma. Next, he moved to an extended look at the historical development of that doctrine, tracing it from the Apostolic Fathers to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Following this he looked at the construction of the Nicene Creed, considering the Cappadocians and Augustine. When he had laid out the construction of the doctrine of the Trinity, he turned his attention to Trinitarian controversies, 100 Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, 220; De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk, 5–​6. 101 Ibid., 221; De Katholiciteit van Christendom, 6. 102 Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, 224; De Katholiciteit van Christendom, 11–​12. 103 James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 92.

160  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck particularly Arianism and Sabellianism. Bavinck argued that all the theological errors concerning the Trinity were recapitulations of these two ancient heresies. ‘Both schools of thought, Arianism and Sabellianism, the one to the right and the other to the left of the church’s dogma of the Trinity, have persisted in the Christian church throughout the centuries’.104 While hyperbolic in his construction, Bavinck’s argument is that errors surrounding the Trinity tend to be connected to a rationalist reading of the doctrine or pantheism/​mysticism. This led Bavinck to point out both implicitly and explicitly that the Reformation and Reformed theology in particular brought no significant change to the doctrinal development of the Trinity.105 What was received as the catholic Christian doctrine remained fairly untransformed by the Reformed tradition. Thus, what will be presented in this section is that Bavinck’s reception of Trinitarian theology does not stray too far from the broadly received tradition. This is especially the case with Trinitarian language such as essence and person. This portion of the chapter will look particularly at the Trinitarian language surrounding ‘essence’ and ‘person’. Eglinton has analysed the Trinity in his work on the organic motif. However, when considering Trinitarian terminology specifically, he concentrates on the concept of vestigia Trinitatis. In his chapter on the doctrine of God, the section on the Trinity focuses primarily on constructions surrounding ‘unity-​in-​diversity’. Thus, it appears that there is a gap in the scholarship with regard to Bavinck’s use of Trinitarian terminology.106 Before Bavinck went too far into his discussion of Trinitarian terminology, he noted that the storyline of Scripture dictates the necessary use of extra-​biblical language. Drawing on Augustine, Calvin, de Moor, Vitringa, Gerhard, and Philippi, he defended the use of extra-​biblical language in the construction of Trinitarian doctrine.107 As was indicated previously, for Bavinck, the essence of Christianity finds its foundation and principium in

104 Bavinck, RD2, 290; GD2, 257. 105 When speaking of the three ecumenical signs Bavinck acknowledged that all orthodox Protestants have confessed these. There is some disagreement among Protestants over the Athanasian creed. Nevertheless, when it comes to ecumenical creeds, Bavinck was clear that Protestants have accepted them without amendment. (See: RD2, 288; GD2, 254.) When speaking of the language connected to the Trinity, Bavinck saw that which was used in Reformed theological constructions to be almost a wholesale adoption of Scholastic categories. ‘Scholasticism, expanding this terminology, established a fixed scheme that was later taken over by theologians in general, including those of the Reformation’. (See: RD2, 298; GD2, 264.) 106 See: Eglinton, Trinity and Organism, 81–​130. 107 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 262.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  161 the ontological Trinity, therefore, it is necessary to use extra-​biblical language to guard Trinitarian theology from error. As Bavinck saw it, Scripture, which is the material for theological reflection, points to the essence of Christianity having as its principium the ontological Trinity. Therefore, new language was necessary to reflect the truth found in Scripture. This is the case because while the language of Scripture points to the divine Triune life, the Scriptural language is inadequate for expressing that Triunity of God.108 Thus, Bavinck’s reading of the language surrounding the Trinity is that it is a negative statement more than a positive one; it is a boundary, it is not absolute. They [extra-​biblical terms] mark the boundary lines within which Christian thought must proceed in order to preserve the truth of revelation. Under the guise of being scriptural, biblical theology has always strayed farther away from Scripture, while ecclesiastical orthodoxy, with its extrabiblical terminology, has been consistently vindicated as scriptural.109

Extra-​biblical language is necessary to preserve the truth of Scripture. It functions, for Bavinck, not as an addition to the truth found in Scripture but as a more precise explication of that truth. As Bavinck was always keen to remind his readers, while Scripture contains no dogmatic system as such, it nonetheless contains all the material for constructing a dogmatic system. It is incumbent on the theologian to draw the logical inferences from what she sees in the text.110 Thus, before Bavinck even engaged with the tradition, he laid out a defence of the traditional Trinitarian terminology. He noted that this terminology is both helpful and necessary. As Bavinck stated, the theologian is not called to parrot back the language of Scripture but to reflect on it. ‘Involved in the use of these terms, therefore, is the Christian’s right of independent reflection and theology’s right to exist’.111 Accordingly, in regard to the Trinity, Bavinck argued that there is a theological appropriateness in adopting the terms substantiae and personae. While God is one substantia, there are three personae. The persons ‘reciprocally exist in each other (έμπεριχωρησις, circumincessio personarum)’ but they are still three distinct persons.112

108 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 262. 109 Bavinck, RD2, 297; GD2, 263. 110 Bavinck, RD2, 296; GD2, 263.

111 Bavinck, RD2, 296–​297; GD2, 263. 112 Bavinck, RD2, 298; GD2, 264.

162  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck To make the point even stronger, Bavinck looks to the medieval scholastic ­tradition, particularly Bonaventure: In his being God duae emanations: per modum naturae en per modum voluntatis; tres hypostases: Pater, Filius, Spiritus S.; quantuor relations: paternitas, filiatio, spiratio activa en passiva; quinque notiones: innascibilitas, paternitas, filiation, spiratio activa en passiva; tres proprietates personales: Pater, qui est ingenitus, Filius, qui est genitus, Spiritus Sanctus, qui est spiritas.113

What is interesting to note here is that while Bavinck could have looked at many sources inside the Reformation and post-​Reformation era to develop these positions,114 he only considered the Latin scholastics; namely, Bonaventure, Anselm, Lombard, and Aquinas. In doing so, Bavinck made an implicit point regarding both the Reformed tradition and his own reception of catholic thought: on this point, neither the Reformed tradition more broadly, nor his own neo-​Calvinistic reflection, had strayed from the older catholic tradition. Bavinck’s reliance on catholic sources was not restricted to medieval scholasticism. He also found resources in people such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Boethius. Bavinck began his discussion of the Trinity in the same way Augustine did, starting with God’s unity. He considered the language that had historically developed around the unity of God. While he acknowledged that there needed to be development in the understanding of terms, he believed eventually ούσια, φυσις, substantia, essentia, and 113 Bavinck, GD2, 264–​265; RD2, 298. Dutch: Want er zijn in God duae emanations: per modum naturae en per modum voluntatis; tres hypostases: Pater, Filius, Spiritus S.; quantuor relations: paternitas, filiatio, spiratio activa en passiva; quinque notiones: innascibilitas, paternitas, filiation, spiratio activa en passiva; tres proprietates personales: Pater, qui est ingenitus, Filius, qui est genitus, Spiritus Sanctus, qui est spiritas. Bavinck cites Bonaventure, Anselm, Lombard, and Aquinas with this observation. Bonaventure stated something quite similar in his Breviloquium when he wrote: ‘So that we might come to a right understanding of this belief, sacred doctrine teaches that in the Godhead there are: a) two emanations, b) three hypostases, c) four relations, d) five characteristics, e) and yet in all only three person properties’. Bonaventure would go on this chapter of the Breviloquium to comment on each of these. See: Bonaventure, Works of St. Bonaventure: Breviloguium, vol. 9, trans. Dominic V. Monti (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2005), I. ch. 3, 4 (p.33). 114 Scott Swain, ‘The Trinity in the Reformers’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, eds. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 227.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  163 natura all came to indicate ‘the divine essence, the Godhead in general’.115 Bavinck indicated that by essence he meant the ‘quiddity’ or ‘whatness’ of God.116 However, in this Bavinck was careful to note that we do not use the word essence for God and for humans univocally. Here one can see definite resourcement of Aquinas as representative of the broader catholic tradition. When the existence of a thing has been ascertained there remains the ­further question of the manner of its existence, in order that we may know its essence. Now, because we cannot know what God is, but rather what He is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how He is not.117

Bavinck made a similar statement in his Dogmatics: ‘To a considerable ­extent we can assent to and wholeheartedly affirm this doctrine of the unknow­ ability of God’.118 Alongside early church and medieval scholasticism, one can hear echoes of Protestant thinkers like Luther, Calvin, and Polanus in Bavinck’s comments.119 However, Aquinas did not see this statement as endorsing a wholesale negative theology. He went on to argue ‘these names signify the divine substance, and are predicated substantially of God, although they fall short of a full representation of Him’.120 Aquinas pointed to what Bavinck made explicit in claiming that there is relationship in the way we use words about God that gives us real, rather than merely negative, knowledge of God. Nevertheless, that knowledge and language use is analogical. There is an analogy between the human essence and the divine essence. Bavinck’s understanding of analogy finds continuity with much of the Reformed orthodox tradition which gets its resources from Aquinas while being sceptical of the Thomistic understanding of the analogia entis.121 Discussing the idea of words being 115 Bavinck, RD2, 299; GD2, 265. 116 Bavinck, RD2, 299–​300; GD2, 265–​266. 117 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I. q3. prologue. 118 Bavinck, RD2, 47; GD2, 20. 119 See: Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will, trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012); John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960); Amandus Polanus, Syntagma theologiae christianae, II.6, 137. While it is hard to demonstrate a clear connection in this regard, Bavinck’s construct reminds one of the Disputationes of Cornelis Hendrickus Elleboogius. See: C.H. Elleboogius, Disputationes theologicae in quinque libris digesta (Leeuwarden: Theo Beenderhuis, 1710), I.xv., 4–​12. 120 Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I. q13. a2. 121 Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, 2nd ed., 65.

164  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck merely symbols that indicate God as the source, Bavinck affirms Aquinas’ view of analogy stating that Thomas argued ‘that all of us mean something different and more when we say “God is good” than when we say “God is the cause of goodness” ’.122 Bavinck would go on to conclude, ‘Our knowledge of God is always and only analogical in character, that is, shaped by analogy to what can be discerned of God in his creatures’.123 Nevertheless, for Bavinck one of the major points of dissimilarity is in the unity or simplicity of the divine essence. ‘God is absolute unity and simplicity, without composition or division; and that unity itself is not ethical or contractual in nature, as it is among humans, but absolute; nor is it accidental, but it is essential to the divine being’.124 Bavinck’s recognition that simplicity marks a point of dissimilarity between the Divine essence and creaturely essence harkens to a distinction that Lewis Ayres recognizes in Augustine. Ayres has observed that when speaking of the attributes of God, Augustine frequently spoke of what God ‘is’ as opposed to what God ‘has’ in his Divine essence.125 Augustine himself said, ‘You alone are like this (because you alone are absolute simplicity): to you, it is not one thing to live, and another to live in bliss—​because you are bliss itself ’.126 Simplicity for Augustine demands that there is no separation even between the attributes. They can be distinguished from each other, but they cannot be broken off as if they are individual parts. From the evaluation of the simplicity and unity of the Divine essence, Bavinck followed Augustine again, in arguing that distinction does not diminish unity. ‘What distinction may exist in the Divine Essence, they may not and cannot diminish the unity of the nature’.127 The very logic of attributes such as infinity, omnipresence, omnipotence, and so on, precludes the idea 122 Bavinck, RD2, 108. 123 Ibid., 110. In many ways, this parallels the conclusion which Jüngel will reach in the twentieth century. Jüngel asserted, ‘If human talk about God is supposed to correspond to him, then it must be analogous to him. . . . Every spoken announcement which corresponds to God is made within the context of what analogy makes possible. Even that silence which corresponds to God could only be made possible, as we saw, by an analogy which reaches its purpose in the end of speech’. Jüngel went on to make a qualified defence of a Protestant use of analogia entis which appears to correspond fittingly to Bavinck’s understanding of analogy. While outside the scope of the current project, a fruitful line of inquiry would be placing Bavinck and Jüngel in conversation with each other regarding an understanding of analogy. 124 Bavinck, RD2, 300; GD2, 266. 125 Lewis Ayres, ‘Augustine on the Trinity’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, eds. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 126. 126 Augustine, Confessions, ed. and trans. Carolyn J.B. Hammond, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016), XII.3. 127 Bavinck, RD2, 300; GD2, 266.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  165 of division. Thus, Bavinck aligned himself with the broader catholic tradition in his definition of essence. He did not see a univocal but analogical relationship in the use of language surrounding essence. The divine essence could be known only in so far as it is revealed and it is revealed in the existence of God. With Calvin, Bavinck believed that to a certain extent we could not ask ‘Quid sit Deus?’128 In all of this, Bavinck regarded himself to be within the catholic tradition, affirming simplicity with regard to the Divine essence. This understanding of unity naturally results in questions surrounding persons in the Divine essence. How can God be one in essence and three in persons? What does this mean? ‘In theology the distinctions within the divine being—​which Scripture refers to by the names of Father, Son, and Spirit—​are called “persons” ’.129 It is clear from this that Bavinck recognized distinctions within the Godhead—​ particular nuances that have historically been described in the language of ‘person’. But what exactly did Bavinck mean when he used the word ‘person’? Bavinck’s interaction with the term person is quite nuanced and, once again, rests on the broader catholic tradition. Bavinck opened his discussion on person in Reformed Dogmatics with a definition of person and from there moved to an historical overview of the development of the word considering many of the difficulties surrounding it. There, he stated that Boethius’ definition of person is the one that was maintained in ‘scholasticism, as well as in the works of the older Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed dogmaticians’.130 That is to say, Bavinck agreed that the best definition for person is: ‘naturae rationabilis individua substantia’.131 This is a significant development. In using this definition Bavinck tipped his hand toward the sources of his understanding of the language surrounding person. Bavinck is following Boethius and Augustine, both of whom come to similar conclusions on this point. Both Boethius and Augustine had examined the ten Aristotelian categories regarding metaphysical divisions, and agreed that in connection to God only substance and relation are appropriate categories.132 We have already seen how the category of substance 128 Bavinck, RD2, 40; GD2, 13.; cf. Calvin, Institutes, I.ii.2. 129 Bavinck, RD2, 300; GD2, 266. 130 Bavinck, RD2, 301; GD2, 268. 131 Bavinck, GD2, 268; RD2, 301. Translated Latin: Person is ‘an individual substance possessing a rational nature’. 132 Augustine, The Trinity, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1991), Book V; Boethius, The Trinity is One God Not Three Gods, trans. H.F. Stewart (London: William Heinemann, 1918), ch. 4–​6.

166  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck functioned for Bavinck with connection to the divine essence. However, it is in Bavinck’s adoption of this Boetheian and Augustinian definition that his own understanding of persons becomes clear. For Bavinck, the persons were subsumed under the Aristotelian category of relations. Previously we saw Bavinck’s rejection of the Aristotelian category of ‘accidents’ when associated to the divine being.133 This would be to attribute composition to the divine essence, and we have already seen this is incompatible with divine simplicity. However, what Boethius pointed to is that the category of ‘relations’ is a different category from accidents. Have I now made clear the difference between the categories? Some denote the reality of a thing; others its accidental circumstances; the former declare that a thing is something; the latter say nothing about its being anything, but simply attach to it, so to speak, something external.134

Thus, for Boethius (a point on which Augustine agreed), the category of relation says nothing about the thing but only that particular thing’s disposition concerning other things. In other words, the category of relations does not speak to the thing in itself but to the circumstance in which the particular thing can be found, or as Aristotle put it, its relation toward something. Thus, Augustine and Boethius were able to attribute divine relations to God without running into any problems with simplicity. Bavinck picked up on this and used this same categorical distinction within his own Trinitarian theology. The Father, Son, and Spirit can be personally distinct due to these relations while being identical in essence. Playing on the relational language that is inherent in the terms Father and Son, Bavinck pushed forward this thought, arguing that a father is always father in relation to someone else. Someone who has never had a son or daughter cannot be called father. The same is true with a son, who can only be a son in relation to his father. If the relations are real relations and not just mental constructs, the names father and son are implicitly relational. Thus,

133 It is helpful to remember that for Aristotle accidents are not permanent. That is to say I can have a green chair and over time that green chair can change colour. The substance of chairness remains while the accident of greenness goes away. What this implies is that anything with accidents is a composite. Obviously if one wants to maintain divine simplicity, having accidents is unacceptable because it would require that God be made up of parts. Thus, the persons of the Trinity cannot be thought of as accidents. 134 Boethius, The Trinity, ch. 4.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  167 there is a distinction in some way. In God this distinction is not essential, but it is personal. Therefore, God is, in the first place, Father, because in a wholly unique sense He is the Father of the Son; this Fatherhood is his original, special, personal property. . . . If God is Father, then implied in this, is that there is a Son, who received life from Him and shares in his love.135

It is important to note that following after the Augustinian lines of thought this is not an essential property but, as Bavinck noted, there are ‘personal properties’. Boethius even stated, ‘So then, the divine substance preserves the Unity, the divine relations bring about the Trinity’.136 Thus, once again considering Boethius’ definition of ‘person’, Bavinck made a clarifying statement. He argued that he recognized Boethius as affirming two things about the term person: ‘self-​existence and rationality’.137 It may be Bavinck’s engagement with the Leiden Synopsis which would explain this assertion. The Synopsis defines ‘person’ as: ‘a substance, or individual nature, endowed with intelligence, subsisting by itself, really and truly distinguished from others by its own incommunicable property’.138 In its definition of ‘person’ the Leiden Synopsis appears to synthesize both Boethius and a definition coming from Richard of St. Victor.139 Boethius’ definition was: ‘naturae rationabilis individua substantia’ and Richard’s definition was: ‘persona divina sit divine nature incommunicabilis existentia’.140 As Bavinck explained it, the main problem with Boethius’ definition is that it works well for the person of Christ but fails to function as well for the Trinity. He pointed out that some of the most astute theologians of the past have tried to modify it.141 Yet, ultimately Bavinck must concede that, ‘In 135 Herman Bavinck, Handleiding bij het Onderwijs in den Christelijken Godsdienst (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1913), 67, 68. Dutch: God is dus in de eerste plaats Vader, omdat Hij in geheel eenigen zin Vader is van den Zoon; dit Vaderschap is zijne oorspronkelijke, bijzondere, personeele eigenschap. . . . Als God Vader is, dan sluit dit in, dat er ook een Zoon is, die uit Hem het leven ontving en in zijne liefde deelt. 136 Boethius, The Trinity, ch. 6. 137 Bavinck, RD2, 301; GD2, 268. 138 Synopsis purioris theologiae =​Synopsis of a purer theology, vol. 1, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Reimer A. Faber (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 1, 187. 139 Ibid., 1, 187, n. 7. 140 Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate: Texte Critique avec Introduction, Notes et Tables, ed. Jean Ribaillier (Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1958), 8–​9; cf. On the Trinity: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Ruben Angelici (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 163. English: ‘a divine person is an incommunicable existence of the divine nature’. 141 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 268–​269. Here he cites Richard of St. Victor, Calvin, Augustine, and Anselm as some examples.

168  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck the dogma of the Trinity the word “person” simply means that the three persons in the divine being are not “modes” but have a distinct existence of their own’.142 Bavinck’s concern was that the term ‘person’ be ‘the unity of the divine being’ opening ‘itself up in threefold existence’.143 In this Bavinck followed the Augustinian view as it was developed in Aquinas and Bonaventure. The personal properties are not essential to the divine essence but are made evident when placed in opposition to each other.144 When these relations are considered in relation to the divine essence they vanish. But by reason of comparison to its term or object it remains, and with respect to this it is distinctive and differs from the essence—​not because it indicates another essence but because it is another mode of reference, and in comparison to the essence or the person this mode of reference indicates a mode that adds nothing.145

In other words, it is only when comparing the personal properties that we see the distinction of the Father, Son, and Spirit as discreet distinct persons. Thus, it is in the comparison of generation and spiration that the distinction of relation can be understood. In making these distinctions, one is not asserting an understanding of the nature of the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit, but only acknowledging the distinctions which exist in the persons of the Trinity. These personal properties exist to say the Father is not the Son or the Spirit; the Son is not the Father or the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Therefore, in following the line of thought coming out of the Western Latins, Bavinck was able to affirm real persons distinct from each other who at the same time were essentially one. Surrounding the definition of words, Bavinck noted some issues concerning the word ‘person’ yet was able to resolve these through a reliance on his Reformed orthodox heritage. He held that divine persons are not substances but subsistence (here, agreeing with Calvin, Polanus, and many in the post-​Reformation orthodox tradition), and then following Richard of St. Victor he held that a ‘person’ has incommunicable attributes (in the divine persons namely ‘paternity’ and ‘filiation’). He also rested on the Aristotelian 142 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269. 143 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269. 144 Russell L. Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 10–​15. 145 Bonaventure, Opera omnia (Mansfield: The Franciscan Archive, 2014), d. 33, a. I, q. 2. p, 574.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  169 distinction that Augustine and Boethius had used regarding ‘relations’. In all of this, however, he was careful to add that ‘person’ is a notoriously difficult word, and when it is used in theology ‘We speak of persons “not to express what that is but only not to be silent [non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur]” ’.146 In the end, Bavinck’s definitions, explications, and uses of Trinitarian terminology do not stray from the broader catholic tradition while he constructively pulled multiple seemingly disparate threads together. This demonstrates the influence of historicism wherein he did not uncritically accept the received tradition but sought to develop it even while staying decidedly inside of it. Bavinck’s understanding of catholicity neither closed him off from other theological traditions nor required him to ignore his own Dutch Reformed tradition. He was able to be both particular and universal. This shows once again that Bavinck was a theologian who was thoroughly engaged with and influenced by historicism without adopting all the relativizing implications of historicism. This played itself out even while Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology. While he would go back to his own tradition, he did not see any problem with pulling from all other church traditions leaning on sources from the Eastern and Western traditions. In this sense his Trinitarian theology is unremarkable. He was able to bring definitions and concepts together to construct his Trinitarian theology. Unlike some who came before (i.e., Schleiermacher) who argued for a radical rethinking of the doctrine of the Trinity147 and some who came after him (i.e., Barth) who maintained the definitions but argued for new words such as ‘modes’ for persons,148 Bavinck was strikingly traditional. What we have seen is that Bavinck saw no contradiction with using the traditional language of ‘essence’ and ‘person’ but embraced it and did not stray from the historical understanding of what this language meant. To be able to maintain a historic understanding of divine simplicity while still understanding the talk of ‘persons’, Bavinck engaged with the language of Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas, and Bonaventure and adopted the Aristotelian category of ‘relations’. Building on the previous chapter’s examination of Bavinck’s Scriptural reasoning, we have begun to see how Bavinck engaged with and was influenced by historicism. 146 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269. 147 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, eds. Catherine Kelsey and Terrence Tice, trans. Terrence Tice, Catherine Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler, vol. 2 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), §172. 148 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromiley, I.1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2010), 359–​360.

170  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck

Conclusion As Bavinck’s committee closed its 1902 report on the Belgic Confession, they laid out some options for the Reformed Church in the Netherlands going forward. While the Synod had not asked for any recommendations, his committee gave two. First, the Synod could offer an explanatory note on the language concerning the civil magistrate and offer an interpretation that was in direct conflict with the authorial intent, or they could change the Belgic Confession causing it to be more in line with their interpretation of Scripture. The committee argued that by maintaining the language with a mere explanatory note, they were consenting to having a confessional statement that in reality bore no authority.149 Therefore, their recommendation was to follow the course of action that the Reformed Church in America (RCA) had taken and change their confession. Due to the American context surrounding religious liberty, the RCA had revised their confessional statements on this point. To preserve the confession for the sake of some sort of transnational unity and to require subscription to this confession without exception was to conclude that ‘all objections must remain unresolved and, therefore, the primordial right of every believer, to be permitted to bring objections to the confession based on Holy Scripture on which the church is to be judged, is destroyed’.150 With this, Bavinck and his committee argued that while confessions are good and necessary, they are provisional and must always be open to change. For Bavinck, Scripture and church tradition lived in tension with each other. Tradition in many ways functions as a guard against an overly subjective reading of Scripture. Scripture cannot be read outside one’s tradition. However, Bavinck was clear that there was no golden age to which the church must look for the definitive definition of theological standards; catholicity is the belief of the church in all places at all times. Thus, dogmatics will continue to develop. Creeds and confessions are boundary markers, but they are not absolute. We have seen in this chapter even with Bavinck’s work in retrieving early modern Reformed orthodox texts (i.e., the Leiden Synopsis), Bavinck recognized that theological reflection did not end there but continued to move forward and develop. Times change, the questions 149 Bavinck, Bos, et al. ‘Advies in zake het gravamen’, 46–​47. 150 Ibid., 48. Dutch: Ware het juist, dan zouden, zoolang de vereeniging van alle Gereformeerden in ééne Kerk niet tot stand is gekomen, alle gravamina onopgelost moeten blijven en daarmede het primordiale recht van elk geloovige, om op grond der H. Schrift bedenkingen tegen de confessie te mogen inbrengen, waarover de kerk te oordeelen heeft, te niet worden gedaan.

Trinity and Retrieval: Confession  171 are different, the theology from 200 years ago is not addressing the questions of today. Nevertheless, that does not mean it is to be ignored wholesale. In that light, Bavinck’s own use of the broader Christian tradition (and even the Leiden Synopsis) in developing a Trinitarian theology, can be considered anew. Bavinck believed that there was truth in the theology of the past, but it always pointed forward. This chapter has built on the previous three by showing how Bavinck understood history and its relation to Church tradition, and then the tension which is present with the interplay between Scripture and tradition. In this chapter I have shown how for Bavinck, ecclesiastical confession holds a ministerial authority over his theological methodology. The argument of this chapter continues to build the larger argument of this project, principally that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. It has continued as I have examined Bavinck’s theological methodology by using his Trinitarian theology as the test case. Taken together, Chapters 3 and 4 have considered the first two of Bavinck’s principia (Revelation and Confession). Only one piece of the puzzle remains: Christian consciousness. It is to this that we will turn our attention in the next chapter.

5 Trinity and Retrieval Christian Consciousness

Chapter 4 opened considering one instance in which Bavinck, on a committee of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands (GKN), argued for a change in the Belgic Confession. In that case it focused on Article 36; the place of the civil magistrate in the upholding of religion. Bavinck and his committee recommended a modification to the Confession. They argued it was not the duty of the civil magistrate to ensure the purity of religion, but solely to make certain the free exercise of religion was guaranteed. While this change would not be adopted by the GKN, it was not to be the last time Bavinck argued for emendation to the Belgic Confession for his church. Once again in 1920, just one year before his death, Bavinck, functioning as the ‘Rapporteur’ of a committee for his denomination, sent a letter to the General Synod that outlined three articles in the Belgic Confession that the committee believed should be changed. Among them were: Articles 2–​8 on the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, Article 29 on the true and false church, and Article 36 on the relationship between the church and civil magistrate.1 The act of proposing that the Belgic Confession be revised in itself is not remarkable. The previous chapter recounted the story which occurred eighteen years earlier when Bavinck had been on a committee making the same request concerning Article 36 of the same confession. However, what was particularly noteworthy about the 1920 call for revision was its reasoning. Your Commission, on the other hand, does agree with the judgment of the Private Synod that a clear formulation and elaboration of some of the points in the Confession is imperative at this time. The fact, which is also listed in

1 Herman Bavinck, ‘Rapport inzake de voorstellen der Particuliere Synodes rakende de Belijdenis’ in Acta der generale synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland gehouden te Leeuwarden van 24 Augustus—​9 September 1920 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1920), 154.

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0006

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  173 the proposals on the agenda, is indisputable that in the more than three centuries that have passed since the drafting of our confessional writings, on the one hand, errors have increased and spread more than ever, and on the other hand insight into some of the documents of the Confession have changed and been clarified. Truth and integrity dictate that the Church give an account of this to itself and to those outside of her with a clear awareness.2

The immediate context for these comments surrounds the entire Netelenbos affair which was discussed in the previous chapter.3 While Netelenbos was the precipitating factor, cultural and philosophical changes and questions were the underlying irritant that the Netelenbos controversy had finally brought to the surface. The larger cultural and philosophical rationale behind changing the Confession for Bavinck’s committee was to some extent the change in the context in which the church found itself. The GKN never had lived in the culture in which the Confession was originally written. It had been more than 300 years since the Confession had been drafted. The times had changed and both the errors that the GKN perceived needed to be addressed and the ways in which they had clarified and expanded on the Confession deserved consideration and representation. A creed or confession, after all, is meant as a public profession of what a church believes.4 Bavinck’s argument was that it needed to change if the church no longer believed it. Thus, as we saw in the last chapter, the creeds and confessions of the church were not unchangeable. In so far as Scripture holds a magisterial role and confession holds a ministerial role, confessions change to be in accord with Scripture. However, in this particular case it seems that Bavinck was calling not solely for subtraction but also for addition. Bavinck appears to be asserting that confession can and should be expanded to address new questions which are asked in a new day. Whereas in the previous chapter

2 Bavinck, ‘Rapport inzake’, 153. Dutch: Uwe Commissie is daarentegen wèl met de Particuliere Synodes van oordeel, dat eene nadere formuleering en uitwerking van sommige punten in de Belijdenis in dezen tijd noodzakelijk is. Het feit, ook in de voorstellen op het agendum vermeld, is toch niet voor tegenspraak vatbaar, dat in de ruim drie eeuwen, die sedert het opstellen van onze belijdenisschriften verloopen zijn, eenerzijds de dwalingen toegenomen en verder dan ooit verbreid zijn, en anderzijds het inzicht in sommige stukken der Belijdenis veranderd en verhelderd is. Waarheid en eerlijkheid gebiedt dat de Kerken hiervan aan zichzelve en aan degenen, die buiten haar zijn, met klare bewustheid rekenschap geven. 3 Cf. pp. 123–​124; See: James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Bavinck Academic, 2020), 285–​287. 4 Carl Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 14.

174  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck it was shown that Bavinck argued for change to the Belgic Confession via subtraction, here it seems he thought that new days meant changes to the Confession via addition. Bavinck grounded this understanding in the third principium of his theological methodology: Christian consciousness. That is, an acknowledgement that theology is a human endeavour and doctrines are not handed down to the church directly from God. Thus, theological methodology must account for the subject doing theology. Once again, the immediate question lying behind the expansion of confession and the role of Christian consciousness is tied to the Netelenbos controversy: how can one know that Deus dixit? How can the individual be sure of the divine authority of Scripture?5 However, at the heart of this question is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit on the Christian consciousness. This concern is present not only late in Bavinck’s career but also as early as 1881 in his piece, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’: ‘[B]‌y misunderstanding the continuing testimony of the Holy Spirit and thus the progressive character that Dogmatics must have, the system becomes barren, lifeless, deadly, and destructive, a petrifaction, making those who advocate it either in theory or in practice to be petty, narrow-​minded, and parochial’.6 Theological reflection cannot stop with retrieval of Scripture and the confession of the church for Bavinck. For a dogmatic system to have life and be life giving, it must not simply be Scriptural and connected to tradition but must also be ‘relevant, taking into consideration and corresponding to the needs of this generation, being progressive and striving for perfection’.7 As Bavinck explained in another place, a dogmatic system must take into account ‘Christian consciousness [Christelijk bewustzijn]’.8 Before preceding, it should be noted that

5 I follow Eglinton’s reading of this controversy. See: Eglinton, Bavinck, 285–​287. George Harinck, Cornelis van der Kooi, and Jasper Vree, Eds., “Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende”: Aantekeningen van H. Bavinck over de zaak-​Netelenbos, het Schriftgezag en de Situatie van de Gereformeerde Kerken (November 1919) (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 1994), 16. Bavinck would assert in a letter to Netelenbos, ‘I think it is better to say that Scripture, the Word of God, the Deus dixit, is the ground of belief, but the testimony of the Holy Spirit, or perhaps more properly, through the Holy Spirit illuminating of the eye (hear, ear), it is the means/​organ, through which I acknowledge and accept that Scripture is God’s Word’. Dutch: Ik voor mij vind het beter, om te zeggen, dat de Schrift, het Woord Gods, het Deus dixit, de grond is van ons geloof, maar het getuigenis des H.G., of misschien nog juister, het door den HG. verlichte oog (hart, oor) is het middel/​orgaan, waardoor ik die Schrift als Gods Woord erken en aanneem. 6 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 99; ‘Het voor en tegen van een dogmatisch systeem,’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroeger Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 65. 7 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 97; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64. 8 Bavinck, RD1, 61; GD1, 36.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  175 with regard to theological methodology Bavinck understood ‘Christian consciousness’ to mean both the experience of the individual theologian and the contemporary context in which the theologian finds herself. Great emphasis has been placed on this Christian consciousness, more now than formerly, ever since Schleiermacher, who declared this to be the only source. To a certain extent, this was correct. Thereby the progressive character of the church, of its confession, and thus of dogmatics as well, was being maintained, and the error was prevented of people thinking that at a particular moment in the past, with this or that Synod, the Holy Spirit had caused the full light to shine in the church upon all the truths of salvation.9

For Bavinck, Christian consciousness is both the individual’s life in the Spirit by faith and the contemporary setting in the world. The work of the constructive theology must take the contemporary setting of the theologian into account without leaving the past behind. In the previous chapter we saw Bavinck’s deep indebtedness to Christian tradition broadly speaking and the theology coming out of the Reformed orthodox movement of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries more specifically. However, Bavinck was also concerned with development in the contemporary situation. ‘To love the old only because it is old, is neither Reformed nor Christian. . . . It [dogmatic theology] is rooted in the past but works for the future’.10 Thus, it is to this concern that this chapter now turns. Having considered the first two elements involved in a dogmatic system (Revelation and Confession), this chapter now looks at Bavinck’s third and final element: Christian consciousness. In exploring this third principium, I argue that the influence of historicism can be seen in Bavinck’s theological methodology through Bavinck’s recognition of the particularity of an individual theologian’s historical locatedness. For Bavinck, while the object of theological inquiry is eternal, the work of theological inquiry is temporal. Such inquiry thus provides for a qualified

9 Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons’, 99–​100; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 65–​66. 10 Herman Bavinck, ‘Voorbrecht’ in Gereformeerde dogmatiek, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1895), iv; cf. ‘Herman Bavinck, “Foreword to the First Edition (Volume 1) of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek” ’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 10. Dutch: Het oude te loven alleen omdat het oud is, is noch gereformeerd noch christelijk. . . . Zij wortelt in het verleden, maar arbeidt voor de toekomst.

176  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck relativizing of one’s theological constructions and opens up the possibility of theological development. To put it another way, I argue in this chapter that the understanding of the particularity of the theologian’s time and place allowed Bavinck to view all theological constructions as provisional and open to future development. The influence of historicism on Bavinck’s conception of Christian consciousness continues to show how Bavinck’s theological methodology not only digs into the past but (to borrow Sarisky’s turn of phrase) also ‘opens up new vistas for today’.11 In many ways, the argument of this chapter brings the thesis full circle, building on Chapter 1’s focus on Bavinck’s philosophical and theological milieu. In order to construct the argument of this chapter, I will make three distinct moves. First, I will consider the philosophical and theological conditions that developed in post-​Kantian modern Europe bringing the chapter back to historicism, organicism, and Wissenschaft. I will show how Bavinck employed these concepts to construct an idea of theological development connecting these to creeds and confession specifically. Second, I will explore the nineteenth-​century conceptions of the Trinity and the use of the language of ‘personality’ by thinkers like Hegel and Schleiermacher. I will demonstrate how historicism influenced Trinitarian thinking and, in Bavinck’s estimation, depersonalized it. Third and finally, this chapter will apply what has been investigated with regard to Bavinck’s theological methodology to his construction of Trinitarian theology. This is where the chapter will continue the process, begun in Chapters 3 and 4, of reconstructing Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology, applying his theological methodology to his own theological project. What this chapter will show is that Bavinck believed that even a doctrine as historically stable as the Trinity needed to grow and develop to address the questions raised by one’s contemporary cultural and philosophical context. With this accomplished, this chapter provides the last piece in the main argument of this book, principally that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of historicism, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck.

11 Darren Sarisky, ‘Introduction’ in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal, ed. Darren Sarisky (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017), 2.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  177

Christian Consciousness: Time as Theology’s Problem Chapters 1 and 2 considered the broader philosophical context in which Bavinck worked. Principally they explored the late eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century turn to history in conjunction with the rise of the concepts of Wissenschaft and organicism. This was a time in which history was becoming a science in its own right. These chapters demonstrated that these moves would profoundly impact how theology developed as a discipline. The fixed nature of doctrine was questionned, and theology was progressively understood through the matrix of experience. The current section returns to these ideas and connects them to Bavinck’s understanding of theological development. Without repeating everything that was discussed previously, the aim of this section is to build on Chapters 1 and 2 and explore how the very nature of theology was problematized during the nineteenth century. As Christine Helmer states, ‘Theology’s lure is eternal truth, while time is its crisis’.12 What the turn to history recognized, for the first time, is that theology has its referent eternity while it lives and moves in time. This presents the theologian with a dilemma. For Bavinck this was a new problem, one which had always been there but until now had gone unnoticed. How can theology understand its relation to time? One must maintain caution in order not to overstate the situation at this juncture. Time has always been understood as posing some sort of problem when considering the eternal. The church has to some extent had to grapple from its earliest days with questions surrounding the death of Christ and conceptions of eternity. The problem of time has been a perennial problem for Christian theological reflection. The eternal God unites himself with human nature and is born of a virgin only to suffer, die, and be buried. This basic Christian confession leads to questions that pertain not only to time but also to divine possibility. Time is a perpetual problem for Christian theology.13 Nevertheless, the nineteenth-​century turn to history brought particular challenges which affected how Bavinck conceptualized theology and 12 Christine Helmer, Theology and the End of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 11. 13 One illustrative example of the perennial problem of time can be seen in Augustine’s Confessions when relates the story of being asked, ‘What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?’ Augustine responded to this with a joke, ‘He was getting hell ready for people who inquisitively peer into deep matters’. See: Augustine, The Confessions, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Maria Boulding (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1997), 12.

178  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck particularly the role of Christian consciousness in theological methodology. History in the nineteenth century grew to dominate the German theological context and, as was shown in Chapter 1, this crossed into the Dutch theological scene.14 This study of history was all pervasive, influencing not only Biblical and theological studies but developing whole new disciplines, such as ‘religious studies’, which were shaped by the new scientific approach to history.15 In Bavinck’s context, one can see subtle ways in which this influence played into the construction of the university, particularly with the 1876 Higher Education Act which reconfigured the theology faculty in the Dutch universities into faculties of religion.16 This Act was controversial. Much of the controversy remained unresolved for some time.17 However, the Act does demonstrate the impact of historicism as an irrevocably transformative influence on the shape of theological studies. Religious studies, as an academic discipline, as a Wissenschaft, was now officially established in the university. The relationship between the theology of the university and the theology of the church found its connection to be precarious. In this context theology was at risk of being marginalized at best and at worst being cut out of the university altogether. Earlier in Germany, J.G. Fichte had declared that Biblical and theological studies had to jettison their commitment to any practical elements so that they could be called properly scientific. As Fichte saw it, theology must remain humble when it enters the university because to do its work, it relies on philosophy.18 Bavinck contended that theology, after Schleiermacher and answering Fichte, depended solely on religious consciousness for its content; abandoning both Scripture and Confession as sources for theological reflection. Thus, this change acknowledged that theology was no longer concerned with knowledge of God, for God is unknowable. Theology became nothing more than religious studies. ‘Its emphasis shifted away from the world of metaphysics to history and psychology. Its object . . . became the religious consciousness in its historical 14 Cf., 38–​50. 15 Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University in Nineteenth-​Century Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 127–​128. 16 Bavinck presents his views on this in ‘Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschap’, De Vrije Kerk 18:5 (1892), 203–​216. 17 George Harinck and Lodewijk Winkeler, ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 505–​506. Eglinton notes that as late as 1913 Bavinck was commenting on the impact of this Act to parliament. See: Eglinton, Bavinck, 89, 103, 138, 271. 18 Johann Gottlieb Fichte, ‘Deduzierter Plan einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden höhren Lehranstalt, die in gehöriger Verbindung mit einer Akademie der Wissenschaften stehe’ in Die Idee der deutschen Universität, ed. Ernst Anrich (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), 154–​161.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  179 development and physical particularity’.19 Theology was no longer concerned with the eternal. It looked solely to religious experience. It was Schleiermacher who first, in a sustained systematic way, addressed the problems that historicization introduced to theology while working to maintain theology’s position in the university as a science. Schleiermacher helped to reconceptualize all the academic disciplines and allowed for each to find its unique place and role in the newly established University of Berlin.20 His new program carved out a location in the university which allowed theology to be both an academic discipline and one which served the church, all while preserving the location of the other sciences in the university. He did this by asserting that theology is a ‘positive science’.21 Its task is to correct false practices and aid in the development of piety.22 Thus, he concludes that theology bears, as part of its work, the ‘care of souls’.23 Schleiermacher’s utilization of history moved his work from eternity to time. Chapter 1 has already noted that for Schleiermacher, doctrine is not understood as containing eternal truths but is a picture of what the church believed and practised at a particular time and place.24 In this way Schleiermacher continued to exert his influence in nineteenth-​ century thought. Post-​Schleiermacher, the goal of dogmatic reflection was to assist the church in the development of piety and, thus, theology gave the church the tools to locate itself in the present and orient itself to the past.25 Bavinck recognized this influence in Schleiermacher and understood it to be a valuing of subjective experience of the divine which became the starting point for most theology after Schleiermacher.26 In Bavinck’s estimation, this move by Schleiermacher made evolution ‘the fundamental law of religion’.27 Theology

19 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology: An Introduction’, Reformed Theological Review 77:2 (2018), 97; Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerdheid: Rede gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het Hoogleeraarsambt in de Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam (Wageningen: Vada, 1902), 21. 20 On the rise of the modern German university see: Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University and Thomas Howard, Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). 21 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study, 3rd ed., trans. Terrence N. Tice (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 1. 22 Ibid., 3–​4. 23 Ibid., 109–​115. 24 Cf. p. 35 25 Helmer, Theology and the End of Doctrine, 13. 26 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 96; cf. Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerheid, 19. 27 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 97; cf. Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerheid, 20.

180  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck post-​Schleiermacher now concerned itself with the evolution of the religious community from the past to the present. It was no longer interested in the truth or falsehood of religion. ‘For they are all together waves in the same ocean, moments of one process’.28 This turn to history, which Schleiermacher embraced, had implications for the understanding of doctrine. It has already been demonstrated that he did not see theology as dealing with fixed eternal truths but worked to see how doctrine explicates the contemporary context. This new focus on time opened the door for a new definition of dogmatic theology, one that accorded better with the evolving nature of doctrine. As such, Schleiermacher wrote that dogmatics is ‘the knowledge of doctrine that now has currency in the Evangelical church’.29 One could read this and think that Schleiermacher was advocating a theology without a normative principle, thus making theology little more than subjective assertions or opinions. However, Schleiermacher went on to say that his new theology was based on empiricism with historical theology as the centrepiece, empirically charting the ubiquity of religious feeling. Thus, while doctrine can change, they were the norms for the contemporary church’s practice.30 One still wonders, however, if in fact, Schleiermacher was advocating a purely subjective approach to theology. Is theology solely an account of the church’s contemporary practice? In Schleiermacher’s articulation of his position, doctrine is normative in so far as it presents the ‘publicly received content’ of ‘shared Christian piety’.31 That is, doctrines are both informed by the past evolution of doctrine and an expression of the contemporary Christian experience. Bavinck recognized this aspect of Schleiermacher. Schleiermacher, it must be noted, still tried in his dogmatic work to give an account, not of religion in general, but of the Christian religion, of Christian piety in particular. This piety, in his view, was marked by the fact that everything in it was related to the person of Christ the Redeemer. The mystical element was anchored in history and thus safeguarded from many excesses.32 28 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 97; cf. Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerheid, 20. 29 Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, §195. NB: Schleiermacher did not make a definitive break between dogmatic and systematic theology. It was simply Schleiermacher’s preference to speak of dogmatic as opposed to systematic theology. 30 Ibid., §198. 31 Friedrich Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, vol. 1, eds. Catherine Kelsey and Terrence Tice, trans. Terrence Tice, Catherine Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), §19.3 32 Herman Bavinck, RD1, 35; GD1, 10–​11.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  181 What Bavinck observed is the tension in Schleiermacher’s work which walked between the present and the past. Doctrine is in conversation with the past but not for the purpose of recapitulating past theology. Theology carries on this dialogue to induce development. Theology must grow and change but as it does that, it cannot divorce itself from the past. Theology must be both dynamic and dialectical. It must be willing to evolve and do so in conversation with the contemporary lived experience and the historic Christian witness. Thus, what we see in Schleiermacher is that theology is thoroughly historical. All of the theologian’s concepts and judgements are conditioned by time and space.33 This produces a dynamic nature in theological reflection which is fuelled by the historical situatedness and particular location of Christian communities. The particularity opens the doors for new questions and formulations of the faith. Schleiermacher believed doctrine was about real life. Doctrine did not describe eternal truth, as if we had access to the being of God, it was about the lived reality of the Christian community in history. Nevertheless, in Bavinck’s estimation there were consequences to Schleiermacher’s deeply historicized view of doctrine. Bavinck believed that what grew out of Schleiermacher was not the reconciliation of the academy and the church that Schleiermacher desired but a distrust and divide between lecture hall and pew, lectern and pulpit, university and church. Recent theology has, in fact, derived its definition of religion. . . not from the theism of the Holy Scriptures but from the pantheism of Hegel and Schleiermacher. With the key of these philosophers, it tries to open the lock that bars the entrance to the mysterious life of the religions. Placing itself on a high, purportedly neutral and independent standpoint, outside of and above all religions, it tries to conduct an impartial comparative study and then hopes that from the crucible of that empirical study the gold of genuine religion will emerge. It lives in silent anticipation that the vivisection conducted on the religions will leave the life of religion intact, indeed, that it will bring it into bloom and to fruition.34

33 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §52–​53. 34 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 98–​99; cf. Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerheid, 22–​23.

182  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck It is noteworthy that Bavinck here brings Hegel and Schleiermacher together under the label of pantheism. Both Schleiermacher and Hegel were influenced by historicism. For both, doctrine and history more generally are in a state of evolutionary process. Current formulations of truth are provisional, open to change and/​or rejection. Accordingly, Hegel and Schleiermacher viewed God as ‘becoming’ because we do not have access to the ‘being’ of God. This turn to history in the nineteenth century problematized time in theology for the first time. While time had always been an issue in theology, the assumption had been maintained that the eternal could be known either analogically, univocally, or equivocally. Historicism in the hands of Schleiermacher radically redefined the nature of doctrine. Doctrine no longer examined eternal truths. Doctrine now considered contemporary practices of the church and how they evolved in time. This made all doctrinal formulations provisional, including the doctrine of God. As I will show below, Schleiermacher saw even the doctrine of the Trinity as open for revision. This is because, for Schleiermacher, the Trinity stood as the nexus between being and becoming. While history was disconnecting the relationship between church and academy with regard to theology, the place of theology in the university was also being questionned. It has already been shown that Fichte questionned the extent to which theology could properly be called Wissenschaft. Many held this concern, and, yet, at the beginning of the nineteenth century Carl Daub asserted: ‘Theology is Wissenschaft in the strongest possible meaning of the word’.’35 Wissenschaft in this sense is a living and growing, a progressing in knowledge.36 Locating theology inside the category of Wissenschaft brought with it a unique and new paradigm. The idea that theological knowledge was not a fixed set of established doctrines, but a developing and dynamic scientific field was nothing short of revolutionary for the discipline, opening the entirety of theology up for new areas of research. One can see subtle changes occurring through the morphing attitudes and orientations

35 Carl Daub, ‘Die Theologie und ihre Encyclopädie im Verhältniß zum akademischen Studium beider. Fragment einer Einleitung in die letztere’ in Studien, vol. 2, eds. Carl Daub and Friedrich Creuzer (Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer, 1806), 4. German: Die Theologie ist Wissenschaft in der strengsten Bedeutung des Worts. 36 August Boeckh, ‘Zur Begrüssung der Herrn Weber, Parthey und Theodor Mommsen in der Akademie’ (1858), in Gesammelte kleine Schriften, vol. 2, ed. Ferdinand Ascherson (Leipzig: Teuberner, 1859), 483–​484.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  183 toward the genre of the theological textbook that proliferated in this period: the theological encyclopedia.37 Zachary Purvis notes that this shift toward a posture of progressive development in theology caused the encyclopedia to go from ‘being an instrument of pedagogical and methodological reflection to a comprehensive, “living” apparatus of theology.’38 Just as the nineteenth century was a century when history was becoming a Wissenschaft in its own right and that meant development in historical knowledge, the same could be said of theology. Theology too was stating the case for itself to be understood as a Wissenschaft.39 This can be observed in thinkers like Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–​1860),40 John Henry Newman’s (1801–​ 1890) An Essay Concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine,41 and Adolf von Harnack’s Das Wesen des Christentums,42 in which he argued for the essence of Christianity as analogous to a kernel and a husk; the goal being to rid ourselves of the dogmatic husk and arrive at the ethical core of the teachings of Jesus. We can also observe this new attitude in Friedrich Schleiermacher’s words: If one desires to master a particular discipline in its fullest extent, one must make it one’s aim to sift and supplement what others have contributed to it. Without such an effort, no matter how complete one’s information may be, one would be a mere carrier of tradition—​the lowest rank of all activities open to a person, and the least significant.43

In the realm of theology, the colliding of the historical turn (when history itself was being considered a Wissenschaft for the first time) and staking out

37 Zachary Purvis defines the theological encyclopedia as a quest to address queries such as: the unity of the fields of exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical theology; the ways that other disciplines relate to theology; the way in which theology integrates its subfields. See: Zachary Purvis, ‘Education and Its Institutions’ in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought, eds. Joel D.S. Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 309. 38 Zachary Purvis, Theology and the University, 80. 39 For more on this see, Johannes Zachhuber, Theology as Science in Nineteenth-​ Century Germany: From F.C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 40 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche Religions-​Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Tübingen: Osiander, 1835). Baur’s contribution is important as he argued for periodization and emphsized theological development. 41 John Henry Newman, An Essay Concerning the Development of Chrsitian Doctrine (London: Toovey, 1845). 42 Adolf von Harnack, Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1900). 43 Schleiermacher, Brief Outline, 9.

184  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck a place for theological studies in the university as a Wissenschaft resulted in a new emphasis on development in the field of theological studies.44 Bavinck too saw theology as a Wissenschaft, or in Dutch, a wetenschap, and, for him, the organic motif aided in exploring the idea of growth and development in theology.45 By employing the concept of organicism, he was able to make a similar point about the theological encyclopedia. In an unpublished manuscript on theological encyclopedia, he writes, This shows us the unity in diversity of theological disciplines indicating cohesion, coherence, order, location, system, organism. Therein the value of the Encyclopedia emerges. If the Encyclopedia does not know where to put a discipline, then it does not belong in it. An organism is a whole with parts which all take up their own place, not too many or two few. Just as science is an organism, and not an aggregate, occasionally thought out and brought together and put together, but belonging together, developed.46

Understanding the theological encyclopedia as an organism assumes the characteristics of organicism that were discussed in Chapter 2.47 One of those characteristics is that the organism is an animating and controlling idea. As parts of the theological encyclopedia come together, there is life, growth, and development. Thus, one consequence for the use of the organic in Bavinck’s project is that it implies a system that develops over time. He demonstrated this point at the end of his introduction to the Leiden Synopsis noting not only that there is a renewed interest in the work but also that the questions addressed in it had changed. ‘But times change. The long domination of the 44 One can point to other theologians such as Isaak August Dorner, Albrecht Ritschl, and Ernst Troeltsch for more evidence of the coming together of history and Wissenschaft resulting in a concept of theological development. This notion was not reserved to the field of theology, but extended itself into philosophy with J.G. Fichte, G.W.F. Hegel, and F.W.J. Schelling being just a few philosophers that argued for both a historical and a developmental notion of history. 45 Ximian Xu, Theology as the Science of God: Herman Bavinck’s Wetenschappelijke Theology for the Modern World (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022). 46 Bavinck, ‘Manuscript “Encyclopaedie der Theologie” ’, Box 346, Folder 187 (Archive of Herman Bavinck, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands), §2. [Hereafter: no. 187, Archive of Herman Bavinck]. Dutch: Deze toont ons eenheid in de veelheid der theol. vakken wijze verband, samenhang, orde, plaats, systeem, organisme aan. Waarde der Enc. blijkt daarin. Indien de Enc. geen plaats voor een vak weet aan te wijzen dan hoort het er niet in. Een organisme is een geheel met deelen, die alle eigen plaats innemen; geen te veel of te weinig. Ook de wetenschap is een organisme; geen aggregaat, toevallig uitgedacht en samengelegd maar saam tot elkaar behoorend, gegroeid. NB: I am indebted to Greg Parker for finding this in the Bavinck archives and alerting me to it. 47 Cf. p. 60–​67; Gregory Parker Jr., ‘Theological Thinking and Loving: Dogmatics and Ethics in the Theology of Herman Bavinck’ (PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2022).

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  185 Synopsis has ended. Another time required something different’.48 Bavinck made the same point even more strongly in Magnalia Dei. There, when referencing major thinkers in early modern Reformed orthodoxy (i.e., Aegidius Francken, Johannes Marckius, Wilhelmus à Brakel), he stated: ‘We are children of a new time and live in another century. And it is futile to desire to maintain the old forms, and to desire to retain the old solely because it is old’.49 For Bavinck, just as the theological encyclopedia is an organism which grows and develops, so also a theological system is an organism and, therefore, it is not beholden to one particular time and place but is constantly growing and developing. This progressive nature of theology informed his view of catholicity. As the previous chapter established, Bavinck understood catholicity to consist of three things: 1) the church as a unified whole, 2) the church as inclusive of all believers from every nation, in all times and places, and 3) the church as it embraces the whole of human experience.50 While the previous chapter considered what this definition means for Christian beliefs of the past, as Brock and Sutanto assert, Bavinck made it clear that part of the task of the theologian is to ‘search for what is true and valid no matter where it is found’.51 Thus, for Bavinck, theological reflection continues to develop. It is not bound to a particular time and place, including the past or even a particular Calvinist or orthodox tradition. Being catholic is more than an appeal to a certain set of doctrines that have once been held and are now held. It is also an embrace of the reforming character of the church. That means that being catholic requires searching for truth in the contemporary Christian experience. This attitude shows itself as well in Bavinck’s travel log on his journey to America in 1892. There, he observed that Americans are too willful and

48 Herman Bavinck, ‘Praefatio’ in Synopsis purioris theologiae: disputationibus quinquaginta daubus comprehensa ac conscripta per Johannem Polyandrum, Andream Rivetum, Antonium Walaeum, Antonium Thysium, S.S. Theologiae Doctores et Professores in Academia Leidensi, 6th ed. (Leiden: Donner, 1881), vi. Latin: Sed tempora mutantur. Transiit etiam Synopseos hujus imperium diuturnum. Aliud tempus aliud postulabat. Coccejus aliique theologi aliam methodum introduxerunt, et Synopsis paulatim in oblivionem abiit. 49 Herman Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 6. 50 Herman Bavinck, De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk: Rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theol. School te Kampen op 18 December 1888 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1888), 5–​6; cf. Herman Bavinck, ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’, trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), 220. 51 Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Reformed eclecticism: On catholicity, consciousness and theological epistemology’, Scottish Journal of Theology 70:3 (2017), 317.

186  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck possess too much self-​assurance to be Calvinists. According to Bavinck this led to the tendency among Americans toward Arminianism.52 In the closing remarks however, Bavinck nonetheless insisted that, ‘God has entrusted America with its own high and great calling. [May America] strive for it, in its own way. Calvinism, after all, is not the only truth’.53 For Bavinck, to be Reformed meant that there was truth in other places than his particular tradition. He held that his tradition was the purest but not the only truth. ‘To no individual man or individual Church has it been given to assimilate truth in all its fullness. Truth is too rich and manifold for this. Only in company with all the saints can we understand the breadth and length and depth and height of the love of Christ’.54 Thus, as he saw it, ‘Reformed’ was a much more helpful moniker for his particular tradition than orthodox, Calvinist, or, even, neo-​Calvinist (a label which did not even exist until 1892). Only ‘Reformed’ bears the character of being in a constant state of reforming. In a 1911 speech, which he delivered at the Free University of Amsterdam, Bavinck argued this exact point. The university that brings us together here in this hour does not place itself on an orthodox but on a Reformed basis, and the churches with which its theological faculty is affiliated are not called orthodox but Reformed churches. This name deserves preference far above orthodox and also that of Calvinistic or Neo-​Calvinistic. For, on the one hand, within the name Reformed there lies a connection to the past, historical continuity, and maintenance of the Christian confession just as those in the Reformation in like manner cleansed the Holy Scriptures of Roman error. On the other hand, [the name Reformed has within it] the demand and obligation to continually review the doctrine and life of one’s own person and household, and, in addition, our whole environs according to these scriptural and historical principles. [We are] reformed for reform [Reformati quia reformandi] and vice versa.55

52 James Eglinton, ‘Herman Bavinck’s “My Journey to America” ’, Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies 41:2 (2017), 10. 53 Ibid., 12–​13. 54 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Future of Calvinism’, trans. Geerhardus Vos, The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5 (1894), 22. 55 Bruce Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, ed. John Bolt, The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 82; cf. Herman Bavinck, Modernisme en Orthodoxie: rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het Rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1911 (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1911), 16–​17.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  187 To take on the title orthodox or Calvinist is a call to go back without any view to moving forward, moving toward perfection.56 One observation to make at this point is that Bavinck’s use of the reformanda language while in continuity with his own historical context, appears to be in discontinuity with Calvin and other Reformers. Beza records Calvin’s encouragement not to change anything about the ordering of the church in Calvin’s farewell address to his company of pastors.57 Exploring Calvin’s own understanding of the reformanda saying, Michael Bush has convincingly demonstrated the sayings, as they are now deployed and consequently as Bavinck would receive them in his day, do not emerge until the seventeenth century and the Dutch Nadere Reformatie and even here the use is not identical with the use in the late nineteenth into the twentieth century.58 One does not see a popularization of the phrase ecclesia reformata semper reformanda or an equivalent like what is found here in Bavinck until the late nineteenth century and the explosion of the use of reformanda sayings does not appear until post-​World War II.59 Bavinck’s understanding of the church that is always reforming and never definitively reformed would have been a surprising idea for Calvin. One can even observe a divergence in use between Bavinck and that of the earliest examples of the reformanda sayings coming out of the Nadere Reformatie. For those who first developed the concept of reformanda, it was tied to maintaining the purity of the church, rather than theological development.60 While it cannot be denied that Bavinck saw the idea of reformanda to be connected to purity, he pushed it further arguing that reformati quia reformandi means theological development. This application of the phrase by Bavinck to theological development demonstrates

56 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 97; Bavinck, ‘Het voor en tegen’, 64. This is not to say that Bavinck did not defend the titles ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘Calvinism’. They had utility for different purposes than the ones that Bavinck employed here. Reformed indicates the developmental nature of theology. 57 Theodore Beza, ‘Life of John Calvin’ in Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church by John Calvin, ed. Thomas F. Torrance, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), cxxxi–​cxxxiii. 58 The Nadere Reformatie (usually translated as the Dutch Further Reformation), was a movement in the Netherlands analogous (while not the same as) the Puritan movement in England around the same time. It took place during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Many of the most influential early modern Dutch Reformed orthodox thinkers come out of the movement, chief among them was Gisbertus Voetius (1589–​1676). For more on the Nadere Reformatie, see: Joel R. Beeke, Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 383–​413. 59 Michael Bush, ‘Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings’ in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 290–​291. 60 Ibid., 298.

188  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck once again Bavinck’s historical situatedness. Historicism’s emphasis on the particularity tied to the notion of theology as both wetenschap and an organism meant development. Thus, Bavinck could say ecclesia reformata quia reformanda and mean the church is constantly developing and perfecting her doctrines. Bavinck was not unique in his use of the language of growth and development. Ernst Troeltsch used language which is not dissimilar to Bavinck’s in his own theological project. Troeltsch argued that Christianity was always in process, always developing.61 Troeltsch, borrowing from Edward Caird, called the essence of Christianity a ‘germinative principle’.62 In trying to identify the essence of Christianity, Troeltsch stated, ‘[t]‌he origins of Christianity. . . are a promising point of departure for the identification’.63 Even though Bavinck adopted this same analogy, he diverged slightly from Troeltsch and called Scripture a seed which grows organically into a theological plant. The Word is Theology in seed; all its truths are contained therein; nevertheless, they must be searched for, brought together, and arranged with at least as much effort and work as in the physicist’s search for truth out of nature; a work, indeed, not of one theologian, nor one generation, but a series of generations, of the Church of all ages.64

The organic relationship that exists between the principium of theological method implies a living, growing discipline. Scripture is ‘the organic principle, the seed, the root, from which the plant of dogmatics grows’.65 Growth 61 Ernst Troeltsch, ‘What does “Does the Essence of Christianity” Mean?’ in Writings on Theology and Religion, eds. Robert Morgan and Micahel Pye, trans. Michael Pye (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977), 145. 62 Troeltsch, ‘What does “The Essence of Christianity” Mean?’, 151. See: Edward Caird, The Evolution of Religion: The Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of St. Andrews in Sessions 1891–​1892 (Glasgow: Maclehose, 1983), 2:296. 63 Ulrich Schmiedel, ‘Performative Practice: Ernst Troeltsch’s Concept(s) of Chrsitianity’ in The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch, ed. Christopher Adair Toteff (London: Anthem Press, 2018), 93. 64 Herman Bavinck, Der wetenschap der H. Godgeleerheid: rede ter aanvaarding van het leeraarsambt aan de Theologische School te Kampen, uitgesproken den 10 January 1883 (Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1883), 12. Dutch: Het Woord is de Theologie in kiem; al haar waarheden zijn daarin vervat, al moeten zij daaruit met minstens evenveel moeite en inspanning, als de natuurkundige waarheden uit de natuur, worden nagevorscht, verzameld en gerangschikt; een arbeid trouwens niet van één theoloog, noch van één geslacht, maar van eene reeks van geslachten, van de Kerk aller eeuwen. 65 Herman Bavinck, ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’, Theologische Studiën 9 (1891), 267. Dutch: Maar zij is het organische beginsel, de kiem, de wortel, waar de plant der dogmatiek uit opwast. Interestingly,

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  189 is an implicit reality to the organic. The organic nature of theology requires that a theological system be animated, growing, developing. For Bavinck, all other possibilities only result in a dead theology that produces death.66 Alongside the organic motif, another reason for this forward movement is that theology is not a purely objective science but has an inherently subjective or personal nature to it.67 Once again it must be remembered, Bavinck was careful to note that theological reflection does not have as its basis subjective experience. If it did, theology would become no more than private opinion and not a science.68 Nevertheless, ‘it is the teaching of Scripture that objective revelation be completed in subjective illumination’.69 In the process of theological reflection the one doing the act of reflection remains fully human. 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. Individual powers of reasoning differ in sharpness, depth, and clarity since the influence of sin also remains operative in the human consciousness and intellect. As a result of all these influences, doctrinal theology continues to bear a personal character.70

The person doing the theological reflection will naturally bring their personality, their ‘Christian consciousness’ into that reflection. This is not an inherently bad thing. It is a part of being human. However, for Bavinck, it means that all dogmatic formulation is to a certain extent provisional in so far as every subsequent generation must rethink and reform their

another parallel to this can be found in the ‘Foreword’ to the first edition of GD. Bavinck observed, ‘Appealing with preference to the older generation, which surpassed the later one in freshness and originality, the author considers it the right of the dogmatist to distinguish between kernel and husk in the history of Reformed theology’. (Herman Bavinck, ‘Voorbrecht’, iv; ‘Foreword’, 10. Dutch: Bij voorkeur zich beroepende op de oudere generatie, die in frischheid en oorspronkelijkheid de latere verre overtreft, acht schrijver dezes het het recht van den dogmaticus, om in de geschiedenis der Gereformeerde theologie tusschen koren en kaf onderscheid te maken.) 66 For more on the question of the ‘essence of Christianity’ and the nineteenth century quest for the ‘essence of Christianity’ see: Stephen Sykes, The Identity of Christianity: Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). 67 Bavinck, RD1, 89; GD1, 66. It should be noted here that Bavinck believed there are no purely objective sciences. Every science to a greater or lesser extent has a subjective side to it because every science has human practitioners who bring a particular world and life view to their science. 68 Bavinck, RD1, 89; GD1, 69. 69 Bavinck, RD1, 92; GD1, 69. 70 Bavinck, RD1, 93; GD1, 69.

190  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck theological statements. Each generation must make a free choice to accept the confessions that have been handed down to them.71 Another reason for this belief in development in theological reflection regards the inherent creatureliness of humanity. Humanity’s finitude and God’s infinitude implies a never-​ending supply of material for theological reflection. For Bavinck, there was a side of this study that will always be incomplete because God is not within human power to grasp; humanity cannot comprehend God. To do so would be to break God up into parts and put God back together. As this is impossible, creaturely knowledge of God will always be provisional. ‘Although knowledge is attainable in theology, this is not true of comprehension’.72 This principium in theological methodology, Christian consciousness, which is the subjective element in theological methodology, not only plays into the idea of development, for Bavinck. It also touches on the nature of theology itself. If theology is ‘a theodicy, a doxology to all God’s virtues and perfections, a hymn of adoration and thanksgiving, a “glory to God in the highest” [δοξα εν ηψιστοις Θεω] (Luke 2:14)’,73 then the inability to comprehend is imperative. While the mystery of the Triune God was once concealed, it is now revealed. However, because in theology there is knowledge without comprehension, ‘there remains room for knowledge and wonder. . . . In that sense Christian theology always has to do with mysteries that it knows and marvels at but does not comprehend and fathom’.74 Herein lies the essence of what allows theology to have both its developmental and doxological aspects. Because humans are finite and tainted with sin, we will never finish searching the depths of God. Even when sin is dealt with in the eschaton, humanity will remain finite and our knowledge of God (which is our highest good) will in some sense remain incomplete and thus, developmental and doxological.75 Knowledge of God will still lead to unceasing praise in the eschaton which implies that we will still be growing in our knowledge of God because he will remain incomprehensible.76 While Bavinck saw the importance of confession and church tradition, he believed that the job of the church was to appropriate them for herself in 71 Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise, trans. and ed. Cameron D. Clausing and Greg Parker Jr. (Peabody, Hendrickson, 2019), 64. 72 Bavinck, RD1, 619; GD1, 588. 73 Bavinck, RD1, 112; GD1, 90. 74 Bavinck, RD1, 619; GD1, 589. 75 Herman Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 7. 76 Bavinck, Magnalia Dei, 570; Our Reasonable Faith, 567–​568.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  191 each generation. This meant that there was an aspect to theological formulation that required a constant reformation and that pointed to development. The philosophical tools of the nineteenth century, historicism, organicism, and Wissenschaft, opened the way for Bavinck to argue for theological development. Because theology is an organicism, there is life and growth in it. The theologian does not merely rethink the thoughts of the past but engages the problems of the present. Bavinck’s conception of catholicity also played into this. For the church’s theology to be catholic, it needed to engage the whole church regardless of time and place. Thus, while Bavinck embraced his theological heritage, he was not afraid to note that truth could be found in different times and places. Finally, for Bavinck the very nature of the task of theological reflection requires that humans engage in theologizing which means that their personalities and backgrounds are brought into this act. The nature of the task given to finite beings as they behold their infinite maker entails the regular re-​evaluation of their theological beliefs. Having examined how Bavinck envisioned theology as a discipline that inherently grows and develops, the chapter will now turn to consider particular issues of his day both in theology and philosophy—​factors that were driving some of Bavinck’s own reflections in theology proper. The following section builds on the current section to construct the argument of this chapter, principally that the understanding of particularity of the theologian’s time and place, allowed Bavinck to view all theological constructions as provisional and open to future development.

Christian Consciousness: Bavinck, Christian Consciousness, and the Trinity Bavinck’s theological and philosophical context can be called a time of ‘modernity’. Michel Foucault referred to modernity as an ‘attitude’.77 Matthew Lauzon has described this attitude as consisting in two characteristics. First, a belief in progress, ‘not simply to see the present as equal or superior to the past; it also implied the rejection of the idea that the past should in any way constrain the present’. Second, modernity ‘calls for self-​conscious sweeping

77 Michel Foucault, ‘What is Modernity’ in The Foucault Reading, ed. Paul Rainbow (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), 32–​50.

192  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck away of irrationally legitimate principles’.78 By these standards, we could contend that Bavinck’s work does not reflect the influence or attitude of modernity. Apart from believing in the constant progressive march of history and theology, Bavinck argued for a pedagogical, if not a regulative, role for the past in present and future theological constructions. Peter Gay is correct in asserting that while there are definite features to ‘modernism’, it is inherently difficult to define without descending into a reductionistic scheme. However, as one examines modernism, it is possible to see that rather than a complete rejection of the past, modern thinkers often had a more nuanced and complex relationship with ‘modernity’ as a concept.79 This project has already noted how the role of the ‘subject’ in ‘modern’ theology demonstrates a distinctly post-​Kantian context.80 Schleiermacher’s theology, and that of the Vermittlungstheologens who followed him, revealed this concern. At the same time, ‘modern’ theology developed a new grammar that it deployed in constructing its doctrine of God. Bavinck appropriated this modern grammar in his discussion of the doctrine of God. The language of Absolute, self-​conscious, and personality play major roles in his doctrine of God.81 This chapter will now turn to the development in Trinitarian theology in the nineteenth century and the concept of ‘personality’ in particular.82 It 78 Matthew Lauzon, ‘Modernity’ in The Oxford Handbook of World History, ed. Jerry Bentley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 73–​76. 79 Peter Gay, Modernism: The Lure of Heresy (New York: Random House, 2007), 1–​2. 80 Cf. pp. 55–​59 81 Bavinck, RD2, 192–​196, 301–​304; GD2, 159–​163, 268–​271. 82 In GD Bavinck made the statement, ‘The Christian church and theology has never used this word (personality) for the essence of God and regarding the three modi subsistendi in that essence, for lack of a better word, they spoke hesitantly’. (RD2, 50; GD2, 22. Dutch: De christelijke kerk en theologie heeft dit woord ook nooit voor het Wezen Gods gebruikt en heeft bij de drie modi subsistendi in dat wezen niet dan aarzelend en bij gebrek aan beter van personen gesproken.) While a study of both Absolute and self-​consciousness in Theology proper would be an engaging study, the aim here is to narrow the scope and to examine more closely Bavinck’s assertion to be self-​consciously making a modern move. Nathaniel Gray Sutanto has provided an insightful analysis of Bavinck’s use of the Absolute in his Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 123–​149. In it he notes that Bavinck’s use of the Absolute in Philosophy of Revelation, eds. Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018), 46–​69, and GD2, 159–​161; RD2, 192–​194. In this study Sutanto connects this to the philosophical construction of Eduard von Hartmann (1842–​1906). Hartmann’s understanding of the Absolute is most fully laid out in his Philosophie de Unbewussten (Leipzig: V. Friedrich, 1869); English: Philosophy of the Unconscious, trans. William Chatterton Coupland (London: Trübner, 1884). In this work von Hartmann ‘seeks to construct a mediating position between subjective idealism and naïve realism’ (Sutanto, 124). For von Hartmann the Absolute is immanent, impersonal, and unconscious (Sutanto, 15). This Absolute allows von Hartmann to bridge the gap between the subject and the object because in the Absolute there are ‘two modes of the same monistic existence’ (Sutanto, 126). While Hartmann’s concept of the Absolute was useful for Bavinck, Sutanto observes that Bavinck did not appropriate all of the aspects of von Hartmann’s Absolute. Specifically, Sutanto notes that Bavinck developed an ontological separation between the Absolute and the world by virtue of the Absolute

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  193 does this in order to build out the philosophical and theological context in which Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology. In doing this, I continue to make the larger argument of this chapter that the influence of historicism can be seen in Bavinck’s theological methodology through Bavinck’s recognition of the particularity of an individual theologian’s historical locatedness. Given the significant differences between them, it is remarkable that Bavinck considered both of the projects of Hegel and Schleiermacher to be essentially pantheistic.83 What is even more noteworthy is that Bavinck contended both, by implication, were guilty of making God impersonal.84 This is noteworthy because subsequent thought surrounding Hegel deployed him for conceptions around personality and the Trinity.85 The most striking being the creator and everything creation. Thus, Bavinck deployed von Hartmann’s grammar of the Absolute along with the organic to construct an epistemology that moves somewhere between classic realism and absolute idealism (Sutanto, 15). Cory Brock has given a helpful exposition of Bavinck’s use of ‘self-​consciousness’ in his Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020). Brock lays out a strong case in his work that Bavinck utilized the language of ‘self-​consciousness’ to help develop both his theology proper and epistemology (though Brock focuses more on epistemology) (Brock, 121–​166). The connection that Brock highlights is the influence of Schleiermacher on Bavinck. Brock notes that Schleiermacher was a background presence in much of Bavinck’s formative years, being mediated to him through one of his favourite lecturers in Kampen, Adriaan Steketee (Brock, 121), and his university years in Leiden (Brock, 97). Schleiermacher’s shadow was even cast over Jan Bavinck, Herman’s father, but the extent to which he mediated Schleiermacher to the younger Bavinck is debatable (Brock, 103). Bavinck would engage with Schleiermacher and in Brock’s reading critically appropriates various aspects of Schleiermacher’s conceptual scheme without taking on Schleiermacher’s material dogmatics. Bavinck called Schleiermacher, ‘the most influential theologian of the nineteenth century’. (Herman Bavinck, ‘Het rijk Gods, het hoogest goed’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 28 cf. ‘The Kingdom of God, the Highest Good’, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 2 (2011), 134. Dutch: Nu was het Schleiermacher, de beurtelings diep miskende en te hoog verhevene, 2 in ieder geval de invloedrijkste theoloog onzer eeuw.) Bavinck would go on later to say that ‘through and after Schleiermacher the whole of theology, both orthodox and modern, has changed into a theology of consciousness’. (GD1, 54; RD1, 78. Dutch: Heel de theologie is door en na Schleiermacher, zowel bij orthodoxen als bij modernen, in een bewustzijnstheologie veranderd.) Brock ultimately argues that Bavinck appropriated Schleiermacher’s language around consciousness to account for pre-​linguistic knowledge of God and ‘a universal revelation of God first felt before discovered by reason’ (Brock, 26). Both Sutanto and Brock’s studies are impressive in scope and move the conversation forward with regard to the modern grammar that Bavinck takes on in his project. They both add to the discussion surrounding Bavinck, revelation, and epistemology. Nevertheless, it would be a worthy study to see how and the extent to which Bavinck employed these concepts in his theology proper. To what extent does he view his use of these concepts as within the Christian tradition or a modern development? These questions deserve their own avenues of exploration which cannot be covered in this thesis. 83 Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology’, 98–​99; cf. Herman Bavinck, Godsdienst en Godgeleerheid, 22–​23. 84 Bavinck, RD2, 49; GD2, 22. 85 Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-​Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 384–​429.

194  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck part of this is that Schleiermacher and Hegel were known for their hostile relationship at the University of Berlin. However, while their projects had divergent approaches and conclusions in their Trinitarian theology, both saw the Trinity as vital in the system they were attempting to construct. This was not unique to them. Even Bavinck argued for the Trinity as essential for understanding the system he was building. Our God himself provides us with an even infinitely higher and richer and more glorious system, to behold and admire, he who is one in essence, in three persons, in whom the one identically complete essence dwells hypostatically in a threefold manner. He, the Triune One, shows us in himself the entirely perfect system: origin, type, model, and image of all other systems.86

The works of Hegel and Schleiermacher tied together history and speculation which culminates in the Trinity receiving both an ontological and an epistemological function in their respective projects. For Hegel, the Trinity established his system. Hodgson has shown how Hegel used temporal representation to construct his more speculative concepts.87 In doing this Hegel was able to bring together history and speculation. Thus, while the Trinity was constitutive for his system, history became constitutive for the Trinity.88 Hegel’s move brought together history and the Trinity in a manner reminiscent of Joachim of Fiore’s construction of history which used the Trinity as a paradigm for understanding history.89 However, Hegel diverged from Joachim of Fiore in not tying these dispensations explicitly to Scripture. Instead, Hegel connected his dispensations to world history. Thus, the first moment is God as abstracted universality, which he identifies as the Father. Then, the universal extends into history, differentiating itself. According to Hegel, this is seen through the matrix of creation and redemption. This, therefore, is identified as the Son. Finally, the third moment, which is understood as the moment of the Spirit, is when this particularized universal is integrated back into the divine life itself as absolute Spirit. ‘It is in 86 Bavinck, ‘Pros and Cons’, 92; ‘Het voor en tegen’, 59. 87 Peter Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 131. 88 Christine Helmer, ‘Between history and speculation: Christian trinitarian thinking after the Reformation’ in Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, ed. Peter Phan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 160. 89 Cf. pp. 20–​21

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  195 these three forms that the divine idea explicates itself. Spirit is the divine history, the process of self‐differentiation, of diremption and return into self ’.90 In this, Hegel invokes classical Trinitarian categories to build his system: the immanent and economic Trinity. The immanent Trinity is God in eternity, the idea of God in and for itself, prior to and apart from the creation of the world, the inward dialectic of identity, difference, and mediation symbolized by the figures of Father, Son, and Spirit. The economic Trinity is the ‘diremption’ (the taking apart or separation) of the divine idea in the divine oikonomia: the creation of the natural and human worlds and their fall into evil, the appearance of God in Christ, the history of reconciliation and redemption, the consummation of all things in God (3:77, 86–​91, 273–​275).91

Following Hegel, the end goal of this process is for God to become explicitly Trinitarian. God does this through being differentiated from and in relation to creation. It is in the economic Trinity that Hegel understood God and the world becoming actual in history. The epistemological payoff then for him was that the system he had built could now find a place for speculation in trying to understand the God–​world relationship, ‘The human mind is capable of achieving speculative knowledge of its ground because it is caught up at the intersection of God’s work in creation’.92 Whereas few question the importance of the Trinity for Hegel’s system, many have argued that Schleiermacher had no use for the Trinity. Thomas Curran comments, ‘Hegel notes in exasperation, the Trinity has a central role to play in the whole ecclesiastical history of Christian piety, but by the time we get to the end of the Glaubenslehre, there doesn’t seem to be any room at the inn!’93 Schleiermacher appeared to have ‘relegated the doctrine of the Trinity to an appendix to Christian theology’.94 Yet as others are quick to

90 G.W.F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Peter Hodgson, trans. R.F. Brown, P.C. Hodgson, and J.M. Stewart with the assistance of H.S. Harris, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 186–​187. 91 Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology, 130. 92 Christine Helmer, ‘Between history and speculation’, 161. 93 Thomas Curran, Doctrine and Speculation in Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 299. See: G.W.F. Hegel, ‘Auszüge und Bemerkungen: Aus Schleiermachers ‘Glaubenslehre’ Bd. 2, 1822’ in Berliner Schriften: 1818–​1831 (Hamburg: Meiner, 1997), 684–​688. 94 Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (New York: Harper One, 1991), 251. Cf. Claude Welch, In This Name: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock 2005), 4; Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed.

196  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck point out, location (for Schleiermacher did indeed leave the Trinity to the end of the Glaubenslehre) does not necessarily imply a decentralized role.95 In fact, in a letter that Schleiermacher wrote to Friedrich Lücke he admitted that he considered discussing the Trinity at the beginning of the Glaubenslehre.96 As has been noted above, Schleiermacher rejected any claims that could not be derived from the historical experience of redemption. Thus, in his Trinitarian theology he precluded the assertions which pertain to ‘eternal’ distinction.97 For Schleiermacher, these expressions do not obtain from the experience of Jesus of Nazareth. Language concerning the Trinity must be traced back to soteriology. This meant that even passages taken from the Old Testament that were classically considered evidence for eternal distinctions were excluded from Christian formulations of Trinitarian theology.98 Schleiermacher understood history to be reality. It is in history that there is an experience of God. One cannot make claims about God which find their evidence outside of historical experience. With regard to Trinitarian expressions, that historical experience arrived in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and the Spirit’s uniting to the church community. In contrast to Hegel, Schleiermacher’s Trinitarian theology does not start with an undifferentiated point. As Schleiermacher saw it, the metaphysical presupposition of the Trinity was the result of a divine causality.99 This causality was actualized in the historical experience of divine wisdom and love in the world. However, the connecting link between both Hegel and Schleiermacher is their periodization which bears a marked resemblance to that of Joachim of Fiore.100 Schleiermacher recommended something like Sabellianism as a possible modification to Trinitarian theology for the modern period.101 However, in Sabellianism, Father, Son, and Spirit are interchangeable persons. For Schleiermacher, this is not possible. The Son and (Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2011), 258; Ted Peters, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 89. 95 Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Understanding God as triune’ in The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Mariña (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 171–​188; Brian A. Gerrish, A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginning of Modern Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 39; Shelli Poe, Essential Trinitarianism: Schleiermacher as Trinitarian Theologian (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017). 96 Friedrich Schleiermacher, On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke, trans. James O. Duke and Francis Fiorenza (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981), 32. 97 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §171. 98 Ibid., §170.3. 99 Fiorenza, ‘Understanding God as triune’, 177–​178. 100 Helmer, ‘Between history and speculation’, 164. 101 Schleiermacher, Christain Faith, §172.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  197 the Spirit are ‘historically non-​reducible to each other, and once introduced historically, as irrevocable constituents of the Trinity’.102 The nineteenth century turn to history had produced a pressing need of establishing history as its own ontological reality.103 Thus, what can be seen from both Schleiermacher and Hegel, in this regard, is the use of the Trinity to construct their systems of thought. For Hegel the Trinity was the beginning and end point of his system in which there was an historical progress from Father to Son to Spirit which reaches its apex in the revelation of the immanent Trinity. In Schleiermacher’s estimation ‘what is essential in the doctrine of the Trinity’ is ‘the uniting of the divine nature with human nature, both through the individual person of Christ and the common spirit of the church’.104 For both, the Trinity became the paradigm that gave history status as an ontological reality. ‘The result was Trinity as system’.105 What had obtained from all of this, Bavinck contended, was that Schleiermacher and Hegel remained pantheists and had depersonalized the Trinity. This was a significant claim given that in the nineteenth century the concept of ‘personality’ was becoming a category in its own right, one which was gaining dominance in philosophical discussions in Germany. In 1841, Carl Ludwig Michelet observed that the previous ten years in the history of philosophy had been dominated by a debate concerning the personality of God.106 It is curious that while this debate dominated German circles, very few people in the anglophone world have explored this phenomenon in the history of philosophy. More recently, Warren Breckman, who has written the most comprehensive English monograph on the topic, noted that, ‘For German intellectuals in the 1830s and 1840s, these questions about selfhood crystalised in a wide-​ranging debate over the nature of Persönlichkeit or personality.’107 Situated between Michelet and Breckman, we encounter Herman Bavinck, who recognized this new reality at the turn of the twentieth century: ‘In modern philosophy and psychology, however, a very different conception of personality has surfaced’.108 It is important to note 102 Helmer, ‘Between history and speculation’, 164. 103 Johannes Zachhuber, ‘The Historical Turn’ in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought, eds. Joel D.S. Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 64. 104 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §170.1 105 Helmer, ‘Between history and speculation’, 166. 106 Carl Ludwig Michelet, Vorlesungen über die Persönlichkeit Gottes und Unsterblichkeit der Seele (Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler, 1841), 7. 107 Warren Breckman, Marx, The Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 9. 108 Bavinck, RD2, 301; GD2, 268.

198  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck that for many philosophers working during the nineteenth century within German philosophical categories this concept of personality, while obviously linked to the idea of person or subject, considered personality a distinct aspect of personhood.109 When the Latin word persona was introduced into the theological lexicon of the early church, the intent was as a synonym for the Greek prosopon. Originally prosopon was used to distinguish it from ousia; where there are three prosopon (or hypostasis) in one undivided ousia (or essence) in the Godhead. Thus, for the Latin church there was one substantia and three persona.110 As Bavinck put it, ‘In theology the distinctions within the divine being—​which Scripture refers to by the names of Father, Son, and Spirit—​are called “persons” ’.111 As was shown in the previous chapter, in Trinitarian theology ‘person’ was used so as to indicate that these three have their own distinct existence and were not merely ‘modes’ of the singular essence of God.112 Thus, even while the early church did develop an idea of what a person is, they were hard pressed when applying that definition to God; to say what a divine person is. Augustine when considering this said that the use of the word ‘person’ when referring to God was not to indicate something but ‘that we might not be altogether silent’.113 Even though the concept of divine person remained somewhat vague, pointing to the idea of three subsistences in the one undivided divine essence, the use of the word ‘person’ was necessary for the development of the concept of human person. In the pre-​Christian Roman society, the term persona was used to designate the different relations one human being had with another human being with special attention paid to the rights and obligation in said relationship. Thus, persona in the Roman sense was tied to one’s role in society (i.e., relations between slave and free, male and female, children and parents). It was only with the rise of Christianity that this situation began to change. Persona started to be less associated with relations and

109 Karl Schubart, Über die Unvereinbarkeit der Hegelschen Staatlehre mit dem obersten Lebens: und Entwicklunsprinzip des Preusßischen Staats (Breslau: Georg Philipp Aderholz, 1839); cf. Jean Bethke Elshtain, Sovereignty: God, State, and Self (New York: Basic Books, 2008). 110 Rudi A. te Velde, ‘The Divine Person(s): Trinity, Person, and Analogous Naming’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, eds. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 361. 111 Bavinck, RD2, 300; GD2, 267. 112 Cf. p. 143. 113 Augustine, On the Trinity, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill (New York: New City Press, 1990), VII.6.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  199 more with individual humans.114 As Christians gained ascendency, Bavinck claimed, it was the understanding that human beings are all created in the image and likeness of God that led to this transformation in thinking in the Roman world.115 On that basis, he believed that the Christian conception of ‘personhood’ is left incomplete unless it is grounded in the archetypal divine persons. As such, he thought that to fill out a concept of a human person, it is necessary for ‘personhood’ in Christian theology to be directly connected to the doctrine of the Trinity.116 When the term ‘person’ was picked up in the nineteenth century, it had been heavily influenced by Kant who had used the terms ‘self ’, ‘person’, and ‘subject’ almost interchangeably.117 The universality of Kant’s subject came into direct conflict with the earlier thought of the particularity of the individual.118 In the midst of this context Hegel rose to prominence. Contra Kant, Hegel argued for a correspondence between his philosophical scheme and reality. This claim opened Hegel up to cries from neo-​Kantians for the need to return to Kant.119 Nevertheless, this correspondence was necessary for Hegel’s project because of its impact on how Hegel conceived of God. Whereas Kant believed we could know God exists but nothing more, Hegel argued that we could both know God exists and obtain a clear and distinct idea of God through autonomous reason alone.120 For Hegel the infinite and the finite could not be separated from each other.121 The dualism that Kant introduced into philosophical thinking was deeply worrisome for Hegel. The question of knowledge of self was intimately connected to knowledge of the Absolute. Hegel’s concern with Kant’s divide between the phenomena and the thing in itself caused him to search for a path that would allow him to affirm the subjective nature of human

114 Marcia L. Colish, ‘The Roman Law of Persons and Roman History: A Case for an Interdisciplinary Approach’, The American Journal of Jurisprudence 19:1 (1974), 119. 115 Herman Bavinck, Beginselen der psychologie (Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1897), 18. 116 Kelly Kapic, ‘Anthropology’ in Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction, eds. Kelly M. Kapic and Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 147–​148. 117 Breckmann, Marx, 13. See: Immanuel Kant, ‘The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God’ in Theoretical Philosophy 1755–​1770, trans. and eds. David Walford and Ralf Meerbote (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 107–​201. 118 Frederick Beiser, German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–​1801 (London: Harvard University Press, 2002), 1. 119 Frederick Beiser, Hegel (Abingdon: Routledge, 2005), 155. 120 G.W.F. Hegel, Science of Logic, trans. A.V. Miller (London: Routledge, 2002), 109–​156. 121 G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 560–​561.

200  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck knowledge without denying the objective experience of reality. Thus, Hegel responded to Kant with a shift in his philosophy from a ‘man-​centered’ view (i.e., Kant) to a ‘Spirit-​centered’ view.122 This shift paralleled that of Schelling, a thinker who earlier we saw influenced Bavinck.123 However, for both of them the shift in final examination remained man-​centered. ‘Nature should be Mind made visible, Mind the invisible Nature’.124 Both Schelling and Hegel maintained ‘that everything is a manifestation or appearance of the idea or reason’.125 It is in this identity of both divine and human subjectivity that the idealism of Hegel and Schelling was able to bridge the gap between the phenomena and the noumena which Kant had created. In the idealism of Hegel and Schelling, God and the human experience of God could be considered one and the same thing. The identity of human experience of God led to questions surrounding the idea of personality. Early in Hegel’s career he set out to understand the place of personality. In ‘The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate’, Hegel argued that Christianity is too focused on soteriological concerns which ultimately warps one’s conception of Jesus. He argued that in place of a myopic vision of the utter difference in ‘might of spirit, in degree of force’, one should consider the similitude of spirit between Jesus and humanity.126 This then caused Hegel to conclude that Jesus declared ‘himself against personality, against the view that his essence possessed an individuality opposed to that of those who had attained the culmination of friendship with him’.127 The place of personality in God is questionned from the very beginning of Hegel’s career, and he would spill much ink trying to figure out how to re-​establish personality in God. In an unpublished manuscript on speculation in German philosophy, Bavinck even noted that Hegel had no space for personality: ‘God is living, God is Spirit. . . Trinity. . . certainly subject, but not evoking personality’.128 In

122 Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 72–​73. 123 Cf. pp. 60–​61 124 F.W.J. Schelling, Ideas for Philosophy of Nature as Introduction to the Study of this Science, trans. Errol E. Harris and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 42. 125 Beiser, German Idealism, 353. 126 G.W.F. Hegel, ‘The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate’ in On Christianity: Early Theological Writings, trans. T.M. Knox (New York: Harper Torchbook Edition, 1961), 239. 127 Ibid., 169–​230. 128 Bavinck, ‘Manuscript “Namen Gods. Drews, Die deutschen Speculation. Opmerkingen”, met het volgende hoofdstuk en de paragrafen “Deel II. Het dogma. Hoofdstuk IV. De Deo. §20. De naam Gods” en “Godsbewijs in de philosophie” ’, Box 346, Folder 179 (Archive of Herman Bavinck, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands), ‘Godsbewijs in de philosophie’. [Hereafter: no. 179, Archive of Herman Bavinck] Dutch: God is levend. God is Geest 260–​1. drieeenij 262f. wel subject, maar wek niet persoonlijk 268.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  201 Bavinck’s reading, the issue was that personality in God does not come until we arrive at the end of Hegel’s world process. As was already shown, Bavinck argued that this inability to arrive at personality in God carried with it a tendency toward pantheism. In 1832, Heinrich Heine, speaking of Germany’s great thinkers, said, ‘For Germany has the most fertile soil for pantheism; it is the religion of our greatest thinkers, our best artists’.129 Whereas Heine appears to evaluate this as a positive, Bavinck judged it more negatively, and observed, in an unpublished manuscript discussing the history of philosophy after Hegel, that he is ‘theologically a theist and philosophically a pantheist’.130 Yet, what needs to be noted is that Hegel’s form of pantheism is not tied to a finite individual but the rational and universal infinite. This pantheism is linked to Hegel’s philosophical system which was a form of subjective absolute idealism. Explaining what Hegel did, Beiser notes, ‘Although the material world exists independent of the finite subject, it does not exist independent of the infinite subject, who has posited the whole realm of nature through its infinite activity’.131 While Hegel’s philosophy leaves no space for a personal God, he did strive to recover the idea of the personality of God. For Hegel, God and man were united and this produces in the self-​conscious spirit a new identity. ‘Spirit is known as self-​consciousness and to this self-​consciousness it is immediately revealed, for Spirit is this self-​consciousness itself. The divine nature is the same as the human, and it is this unity that is beheld’.132 It is this unity of self-​consciousness that allowed Hegel to posit an absolute subjectivity.133 This then opened the door for Hegel to attempt to recover personality. Hegel relied on Christianity in his defence of the personality of God, arguing that it is only in Christianity that the distinction between consciousness and self-​ consciousness is overcome. This means that for Hegel, in Christianity: God is thought of as self-​consciousness. . . . The self that is thought of is not actual self. . . . For what is thought of, ceases to be something [merely] 129 Heinrich Heine, ‘Preface to the second edition’ in On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany and Other Writings, ed. Terry Pinkard, trans. Howard Pollack-​Milgate (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, 2007), 58. 130 Bavinck, ‘Manuscript “Geschiedenis der wijsbegeerte na Hegel”  ’, Box 346, Fold 201 (Archive of Herman Bavinck, Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands), §1. [Hereafter: no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck] Dutch: theol. theism en philos pantheisme. . . . 131 Beiser, Hegel, 70. 132 Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, 460. 133 Ibid., 462.

202  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck thought of, something alien to the self ’s knowledge, only when the self has produced it, and therefore beholds the determination of the object as its own, consequently beholds itself in the object.134

Hegel’s attempt to maintain personality lay in the understanding of the Absolute as a specific self-​consciousness and the human retaining value solely as a human. This struggle to recover personality left many wanting for more from Hegel. Orthodox and pietist German theologians, such as August von Tholuck and Ernst Hegstenberg, understood his philosophy to be negating a personal God, and in responding to him, they wanted to restore a vision of God that saw him as ‘living’, ‘personal’, ‘actual’, and ‘free’.135 These theologians found him inadequate when weighing him against orthodox Christian dogma. Thus, charges of pantheism, panlogism, or Spinozism were levied against him, all of which ‘amounted to a charge of atheism’.136 For the orthodox theologian there was no accepting the philosophy that Hegel had constructed. Nevertheless, as Bavinck made clear in his Dutch context, ‘orthodoxy, unless it completely shuts itself off from its surroundings, is under the influence of this century’s zeitgeist to a greater or lesser extent’.137 The way forward for Bavinck was not solely to step back though he did do this to some extent, as we saw in the previous chapter. In the foreword to the first edition of his Dogmatics Bavinck stated: Above all, there is in this communion of saints a powerful strength and an excellent comfort. Dogmatics is not currently honored; Christian dogma does not share in the favor of the time. Therefore according to the words of Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof en Revolutie, 1886, 17, ‘at times there is a sense of abandonment, of isolation. Nevertheless, all the more reason to give thanks to be able to make an appeal to the bond of the ancestors’.138 134 Ibid., 417. 135 Walter Jaeschke, Reason in Religion: The Foundations of Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion, trans. J. Michael Stewart and Peter Hodgson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 400. 136 Breckmann, Marx, 43. 137 Bavinck, Modernisme en Orthodoxie, 15; cf. Pass, ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’, 79–​80. Dutch: Zooals de moderne theologie over het algemeen nog veel sterker uit de Christelijke traditie denkt en leeft dan zij zelve vermoedt, zoo staat ook de orthodoxie, tenzij zij zich geheel van hare omgeving afsluit, in zwakker of sterker mate onder den invloed van de geestesstroomingen dezer eeuw. 138 Bavinck, ‘Voorbrecht’, iii; cf. ‘Herman Bavinck, “Foreword to the First Edition (Volume 1) of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek” ’, , 9. Dutch: Bovendien ligt er in deze gemeenschap der heiligen eene sterkende kracht en een uitnemende troost. Dogmatiek is thans niet in eere; het christelijk dogma deelt niet in de gunst van den tijd. Vandaar, naar het woord van Groen van Prinsterer, Ongeloof en

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  203 Bavinck did see the importance of resourcing the past, yet he did not embrace those resources at the neglect of the tools in the present. To go back without moving forward would be to ignore the contemporary questions and risk losing the reforming nature of Reformed theology. Hegel’s Absolute ideal had made the tri-​personal God of Christian orthodoxy a philosophical impossibility. Bavinck knew that one response could be to ignore Hegel and call back the old orthodoxies without addressing the contemporary challenges, as some had done. However, Bavinck contended that for Christianity to continue pressing forward as a religion, it had to answer Hegel and establish a place for personality in God. Having looked at the nineteenth century’s development surrounding personality and challenges to it, this chapter turns to Bavinck’s engagement with the question of personality in God.

Christian Consciousness: Bavinck’s Answer to Questions of Divine Personality Early into his second volume of the Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck acknowledged a break which almost every philosophical system had created between the personality of God and the absoluteness of God.139 After having laid out the problem of the divide between personality and absoluteness, Bavinck suggested that the solution could be found in attributing absolute personality to the divine essence. ‘The persons are not three revelational modes of the one divine personality; the divine being is tripersonal, precisely because it is the absolute divine personality’.140 As he makes this assertion of attributing personality to the divine essence, Bavinck argued that he is making a self-​ consciously modern move, and leans on mid-​nineteenth-​­century German philosophers coming out of speculative theism represented by I.H. Fichte (1796–​1879; J.G. Fichte’s son), C.H. Weisse (1801–​1866), Herman Ulrici (1806–​1884), and others. Bavinck utilized these thinkers and in this he believed he was making an original and constructive step in his theology proper, stating, ‘The Christian church and Christian theology, it must be remembered, has never used this word “personality” to describe God’s being; Revolutie 1868 bl. 17, somwijlen een gevoel van verlatenheid, van isolement. Maar des te meer stemt het dan tot dank, een beroep te kunnen doen op het bondgenootschap der voorgeslachten.

139 Bavinck, RD2, 34; GD2, 7.

140 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269.

204  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck and in respect of the three modes of subsistence in that being, they only spoke of persons reluctantly and for lack of better term’.141 The perennial problem in philosophical systems concerning the absoluteness and personality of God was expressed in Bavinck’s age coming out of Kant and running through the idealism of Hegel and Schelling. As Bavinck saw it, all philosophical systems had set the absolute in contrast to the personal. That is, for nineteenth-​ century German philosophy, personality implied an inherently finite existence, and the absolute was infinite, independent, and unbound. Thus, you could not have a God who was both absolute and personal. Gayle Doornbos has been helpful in showing that for Bavinck often ‘absolute’ can be read in light of classical theism as ‘apophatic’ theology, and ‘personality’ can be read as ‘cataphatic’ theology both with some modern derivations connected to it.142 However, it seems that Bavinck is doing something slightly different with this one comment from Bavinck. ‘The persons are not three revelational modes of the one divine personality; the divine being is tripersonal, precisely because it is the absolute divine personality’.143 In Bavinck’s discussion of the absolute personality of God, he pointed to his sources being a group of philosophers who came to be known as the ‘Speculative Theists’.144 This was not a unified ‘school’ so much as a collection of philosophers all set on the goal of recovering a personal God from Hegelian Absolute idealism.145 When reflecting on this period later in his career, I.H. Fichte said that in their battle against Hegel’s ‘panlogism’ and ‘its dialectical process’, they ‘wrote on [their] banner the principle of individualism, freedom, and personality’.146 Between the two leading figures in the movement, C.H. Weisse and I.H. Fichte, there were major divides as to the proper way for maintaining personality. Bavinck noted that for Weisse, ‘the absolute personality of God is the

141 Bavinck, RD2, 50; GD2, 23. 142 Gayle Doornbos, ‘Bavinck’s Doctrine of God: Absolute, Divine Personality’, The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 6:2 (2021), 311–​348. 143 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269. 144 In his philosophy lectures, Bavinck sets this group apart as the ‘Speculative Theists’ see: Bavinck, no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck, §2. 145 Breckman, Marx, 49. 146 I.H. Fichte, ‘Bericht über meine philosophische Selbstbildung, als Einleitung zu den ‘Vermischten Schriften’ und al Beitrag zur Geschichte nachhegel’scher Philosophie’, in Vermischte Schriften zur Philosophie, Theologie und Ethik, vol. 1 (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1869), 62. German: Dem „Panlogismus“ des Systems und der behaupteten „Nothwendigkeit“ seines dialektischen Processes gegenüber schrieben wir das Princip des Individualismus, der Freiheit und der Persönlichkeit auf unsere Fahne.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  205 result of a theoretical process’.147 This is placed in distinction to I.H. Fichte who believed that the proper place to see the absolute personality of God was at the beginning.148 Bavinck, however, considered it important to understand the historical background of the rise of ‘speculative theism’. In the section of his lecture notes on the topic, he dedicated thirteen of the twenty-​five pages to laying the philosophical groundwork for the rise of the movement. In this section of the notes Bavinck interacted with Schleiermacher, F.H. Jacobi, and J.G. Fichte (I.H. Fichte’s father). For Bavinck, these three thinkers are foundational for building the response to the impersonal Absolute idealism that had grown out of Hegel’s philosophy. As we have already seen, Bavinck believed that the dualism Kant’s philosophy had produced was deeply problematic. The question of how best to overcome this was a preoccupation of much philosophical thought in the nineteenth century. Hegel’s solution to this problem was impersonal Absolute idealism. Bavinck read Schleiermacher as responding to Hegel and attempting to solve Kantian dualism. Whereas for Hegel the Absolute was the ideal, Bavinck explained that for Schleiermacher the Absolute was the object of our feeling. The unity of the ideal and the real, of thinking and being, is the absolute (=​the absolute self), becoming, thus, in our thinking and willing certainly assumed, but not known, it is certainly voraussetzung of our knowledge, but 147 Bavinck, no. 179, Archive of Herman Bavinck, ‘Godsbewijs in de philosophie’. Dutch: Weisse meent, dat de absolute persoonlijkheid Gods resultaat is van een theoretische proces waardoor God uit . . . It is interesting to note that Bavinck went on to identify various theologians who followed Weisse down this path. He specifically names Dorner as one of those that follow Weisse. This is noteworthy because it appears that Bavinck is self-​consciously distancing himself from Dorner on the absolute personality of God. This would seem to mitigate against the connection that Cory Brock makes between Bavinck and Dorner on the absolute personality of God. (See: Brock, Orthodox yet Modern, 55–​56.) In a short comment on the topic Brock notes that while there are subtle differences between Bavinck and Dorner regarding absolute personality in the divine essence, Bavinck is relying on Dorner’s construction of absolute personality for Bavinck’s own understanding of the topic. However, with this one comment, Bavinck seems to have distanced his construction from that of Dorner. It appears that Bavinck’s main concern was that Weisse was still too Hegelian. In fact, Weisse considered himself still a Hegelian. (See: Kurt Leese, Philosophie und Theologie im Spätidealismus. Forschungen zur Auseinandersetzung von Christentum und idealistischer Philosophie im 19 Jahrhundert (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1929), 10.) Rather than setting the absolute personality of God at the beginning of the world process, Weisse placed it at the end. If Bavinck’s reading of Dorner was that he was adopting Weisse’s understanding, then Bavinck considered Dorner’s conception of absolute personality to be suspect at best and bordering toward pantheism at worst. 148 I.H. Fichte, ‘Bericht’, 102.

206  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck not self-​knowledge (object of the knowledge). The Absolute is, therefore, not the object of our thinking, nor either (against Kant) of our willing, but is taken in, in the true feeling.149

For Schleiermacher, a theology of feeling was the response to Hegel’s speculative philosophy of Absolute idealism. Alongside Schleiermacher, Bavinck understood F.H. Jacobi to be playing an important part in the philosophical development at the time which led to the rise of the ‘Speculative Theists’. Jacobi’s philosophical constructions were developed in response to Spinoza and Kant and not necessarily to Hegel. Nevertheless, they proved important in the response to Hegel’s impersonal Absolute. As Bavinck saw it, on this point Hegel was the outworking of Spinoza’s thought.150 In an effort to combat this pantheism Jacobi rejected Hegel’s speculative philosophy. Along with other philosophers, ‘the idea of absolute personality, connected it with the idea of becoming, and thus introduced in God a theogonic process’.151 In order to avoid the pantheism of Hegel, Bavinck asserted that in Jacobi, ‘We know God only from ourselves out of the human being; not nature and thus not theology’.152 Finally, the last of the major figures Bavinck deals with as background for ‘speculative theism’ is J.G. Fichte. Bavinck saw the younger Fichte as completing his father’s project. J.G. Fichte had developed the ‘I’ as the Absolute, and he was ambiguous as to how he viewed the relationship between that Absolute and the human subject.153 Bavinck understood the older Fichte’s position to be a form of pantheism in which ‘God was not being, not substance but absolute Thun, Thätigkeit’.154 Thus, for Bavinck while J.G. Fichte laid important ground work on which the ‘Speculative Theists’ (and especially I.H. Fichte) constructed the argument for a personal God, he was still lacking in this area. 149 Bavinck, no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck, §2. Dutch: De eenheid van ‘t ideale en reale, van denken en zijn, is ‘t absolute, (=​‘t absolute zelf), wordt dus in ons denken en willen wel ondersteld, maar niet gekend; ‘t is wel voraussetzung van ons weten, maar niet zelf weten (object van ‘t weten). Het Absolute is dus niet object van ons denken, noch ook (tegen Kant) van ons willen, maar wordt in ‘t gevoel waar genomen. 150 Bavinck, RD2, 114–​115; GD2, 83–​84. 151 Bavinck, RD2, 115; GD2, 84. 152 Bavinck, no. 179, Archive of Herman Bavinck, ‘Godsbewijs in de philosophie’. Dutch: Wij kennen God alleen uit ons selven uit den mensch; niet uit de nature & dus geen theol. 153 I.H. Fichte, Sätze sur Vorschule der Theologie (Stuttgart and Tübingen: Cotta, 1826), xlvii. 154 Bavinck, GD2, 84; RD2, 114. Dutch: In zijn overdreven moralisme was God hem gelijk met het zuivere ik, met de zedelijke wereldorde; God was geen zijn, geen substantie maar absolutes Thun, Thätigkeit.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  207 Bringing these three influences together and looking at the speculative theist movement itself, Bavinck recognized all of their influence and especially the influence of Schleiermacher, stating, ‘Through his philosophical treatments of theology, through his elevation of personality, through his warm religious disposition, through his appreciation of Christ, Schleiermacher had an influence on a number of theologians and philosophers.’155 The effect of Schleiermacher, F.H. Jacobi, and J.G. Fichte on the most influential members of the movement is significant. Bavinck noted that it was a formative aspect of the journal in which many of the ideas coming out of speculative theist circles were published, Zeischrift für Philosophie und speculative Theologie.156 Despite not being a unified school in the approach of the ‘Speculative Theists’ to the concept of personality, there was a unity over the desire to overcome Hegel’s impersonal Absolute. The belief was that Hegel’s philosophical system ended in pantheism or panlogism. Speaking of I.H. Fichte, Bavinck said, ‘He denounced it in all the current philosophical systems that therein come into their own in the individual, and came to reject the idea of a free creative personal God. Therefore, he himself had strong resistance against Hegel’.157 Following in the footsteps of Jacobi, the Speculative Theists movement saw an analogy between the human person and the personal God. Whereas Jacobi argued for a form of theistic individualism contra the tendency toward nihilism that he perceived in rationalism,158 this individualism can be seen in the work of the Speculative Theists as well. The important point to note is that for the Speculative Theists the relationship between God’s personality and human personality was analogical, rather than identical.159 The major point of differentiation is that in God, personality experiences a complete freedom which results from the unity of God.160 The major difference between divine and human personalities for

155 Bavinck, no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck, Manuscript ‘Hegel’ §2. Dutch: Door zijn philosophische behandeling der Theologie, door zijn hoogstellen der persoonlijkheid, door zijn warm religieuse gemoed, door zijn waardeering van Christus had Schleiermacher invloed op tal van theologen en philosophen. 156 Bavinck, no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck, §2. 157 Bavinck, no. 201, Archive of Herman Bavinck, §2. Dutch: Hij berispt het in alle tegenwoordige stelsels van philos. dat daarin de individualteit mis tot haar recht komt; en der kot wijt de idee van een vrij scheppend persoonlijke God verwerpen. Sterk verzet hij zich daarom tegen Hegel. 158 Frederick Beiser, The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte (London: Harvard University Press, 1987), 81–​83. 159 I.H. Fichte, ‘Bericht’, 103; C.H. Weisse, Die Idee der Gottheit: eine philosophische Abhandlung, als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie (Dresden: Ch. F. Grimmer, 1833), 159–​163. 160 I.H. Fichte, Die Idee der Persönlichkeit und der individuellen Fortdauer (Elberfeld: Büschler, 1834), 97–​104.

208  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck I.H. Fichte and C.H. Weisse was found in the human will. Notice the influence of Schleiermacher in this construction. Whereas for Schleiermacher, Christian faith, indeed all expressions of piety have in common ‘that we are conscious of ourselves as absolutely dependent’,161 the Speculative Theists believed that the human will is not able to avoid the feeling of dependence of God.162 Thus, ‘the distinctness of the human person as a relatively self-​ identical being ensures the integrity of the personhood both in this world and the next’.163 When considering absolute personality in the divine essence, Bavinck also called it an analogy, and not a univocal relationship. ‘In humans we witness only a faint analogy of divine personality’.164 He was careful to note that the concept of personality, while taken from the human experience, is not an anthropomorphizing of God but a theomorphizing of humanity. Recall that immediately preceding this comment Bavinck asserted, ‘The persons are not three revelational modes of the one divine personality; the divine being is tripersonal, precisely because it is the absolute divine personality’.165 Thus, because God in his being is absolute personality, humanity can bear an analogy to this, albeit a deficient analogy.166 However, the obvious question that arises from Bavinck’s construction concerns whether this is merely a reconstruction of the historic Christian confession of humanity being created in the image and likeness of God. As we have already seen Bavinck considered the attribution of absolute personality to the divine essence as a constructive move.167 If, in fact, the concept of ‘personality’ is tied back to questions surrounding the historic conversations about ‘personhood’, then Bavinck is not doing anything constructive. Rudi te Velde observes that questions of absolute and relative personhood were approached by Aquinas.168 Russell Friedman observes that Duns Scotus constructed a Trinitarian theology with the concept of absolute persons.169 Simon Burton discusses this same phenomenon in the broader early modern 161 Schleiermacher, Christian Faith, §4. 162 C.H. Weisse, ‘Über die eigentliche Grenze des Pantheismus und des philosophischen Theismus (1833)’ Religiöse Zeitschrift für das katholische Deutschland (Dresden: Ch. F. Grimmer, 1833), vol. 1, 31–​51, 143–​153, 227–​239; vol. 2, 99–​119, 244–​269. 163 Breckman, Marx, 52. 164 Bavinck, RD2, 303; GD2, 269. 165 Bavinck, RD2, 302; GD2, 269. 166 Bavinck, RD2, 303; GD2, 269. Bavinck notes that the analogy is an insufficient one. 167 Bavinck, RD2, 50; GD2, 23. 168 te Velde, ‘The Divine Person(s)’, 365–​368. 169 Russell L. Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 183–​184.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  209 period specifically applying it to the Trinitarian theology of Richard Baxter.170 It seems apparent that if the question of absolute Divine personality is the same as that of absolute personhood, then it would appear that Bavinck was mistaken in his contention that what he was doing had never been done before. In fact, it would appear that Bavinck was entering into a centuries-​old debate about the nature of a divine person as relative or absolute. However, Bavinck contended that he was attempting something unique, and the sources that he has chosen to use point in this direction too.171 In choosing the sources he did, Bavinck also lined up with their definitions of personality. For thinkers like I.H. Fichte and C.H. Weisse, personality was a vague concept. It was distinct from ‘personhood’ but never fully defined as a concept. While Bavinck gives no definitive definition of the word ‘personality’ and how he is using it, he does offer some hints at this understanding of what personality is. In Reformed Dogmatics he stated, ‘God is a person, a conscious and freely willing being’.172 He continued by describing it as ‘self-​consciousness’ which ‘is equally deep and rich, equally infinite, as his being’.173 This personality then is ‘the eternal synthesis of himself with himself, infinite self-​knowledge and self-​determination, and therefore not dependent on a nonself ’.174 What can be seen here is that the values of the Speculative Theists’ concern for individualism and freedom come together in Bavinck’s understanding of personality.175 There is a psychological depth that is equated with the divine essence that was not present in early modern thought concerning divine persons. 170 Simon J.G. Burton, The Hallowing of Logic: The Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s Methodus Theologiae (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 228–​241. 171 Sutanto starts to gesture in this direction, yet he undercuts his argument by equating personality, consciousness, and personhood. This makes Sutanto’s reading of Bavinck’s use of ‘personality’ confused. As has already been shown, if Bavinck is dealing with the concept of an ‘absolute person’, then he is not making a constructive move that has not already been made by other theologians. However, if ‘personality’ is understood as a technical term, then Bavinck’s attribution of this to the divine essence is a provocative development in Trinitarian theology. Thus, while Sutanto’s instincts in this area are correct, ultimately he fails to appreciate fully the philosophical resources that Bavinck is using and the historical background of ‘absolute personhood’. See: Sutanto, God and Knowledge, 29–​30. This also seems to be a weakness in the way that the translator approaches the concept in RD. They have chosen to use ‘personality’ as interchangeable for ‘person’ or ‘personhood’. While there is some overlap in Bavinck’s use of the persoonlijkheid, caution does need to be exercised in that Bavinck appears to have used it as a technical term and not solely as a catch-​all word. Perhaps a better course of action would have been to translate Bavinck’s more general uses as ‘personhood’ and when he employed a technical term to use the English word ‘personality’. 172 Bavinck, RD2, 30; GD2, 3. 173 Bavinck, RD2, 49; GD2, 23. 174 Bavinck, RD2, 49–​50; GD2, 23. 175 C.f. I.H. Fichte, ‘Bericht’, 63.

210  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck In ascribing personality to the divine essence, it could be argued that Bavinck does not, in reality, solve any of the problems that Hegel had created. While Bavinck is careful not to assert that God is unipersonal, it would appear that his argument implied such a conclusion. The problem with this is that if God is ‘a’ person in his essence then personhood as such cannot exist because ‘personhood. . . arises only in plurality’.176 One wonders if relying on older formulae may not have served Bavinck better here. Nevertheless, the desire to see the doctrine of Trinity answer the questions of the day was noble. However, it seems Bavinck’s response had the potential of causing more problems than it solved.

Conclusion In 1920 Bavinck argued that Christian theology had to address the problems and questions of its day. The issue that confronted him and confronts every theologian in every epoch is time. The object of theological inquiry is the eternal, yet the subject of theological investigation is timebound. This meant, as Bavinck saw it, that there is some aspect to all theological formulation which is provisional. Bavinck believed, therefore, that his theological method needed to take this provisional nature into account; that principium was Christian consciousness. Christian consciousness, for Bavinck, was the recognition that theology is done by people. People inevitably bring themselves, their experiences, culture, and philosophical assumptions into the work of theology. Thus, every theological formulation of every doctrine is provisional. This chapter has argued that Bavinck’s understanding of the particularity of the theologian’s time and place allowed him to view all theological constructions as provisional and open to future development. It showed the final piece in Bavinck’s theological method: Christian consciousness. In doing this it gave the full picture of Bavinck’s embrace of the historical turn. Bavinck acknowledged the provisional and developmental nature of theological reflection without taking on all the relativizing aspects of historicism. By not seeing theological doctrines as unchangeable or viewing the work of theologian as merely a historian nor seeing theology as primarily wrapped up in 176 Robert Spaemann, Persons: The Difference between ‘Someone’ and ‘Something’, trans. Oliver O’Donovan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 40.

Trinity and Retrieval: Christian Consciousness  211 religious experience, but as the interplay between Scripture, Confession, and Christian consciousness, Bavinck understood himself as trying to avoid the twin ditches of dead orthodoxy and unmoored progressivism. As this book has argued, although Bavinck did not embrace historicism in a thoroughly relativistic way, his thought was formed by the belief that history both shapes the present and allows for development in the future. As such, historicism has a demonstrable influence on Bavinck’s theological methodology—​even in crucial doctrines like the Trinity or personality in the Godhead. For Bavinck, the task of theology was not to love the old simply because it is old but to press on and determine how each new epoch can articulate the faith for itself in its own language and thought, seeking continuity as well as development. As Wolfhart Pannenberg would say years later: In each historical epoch, systematic theology has to be done all over again. And yet, the task is always the same, and the truth which systematic theology tries to reformulate should recognizably be the same truth that had been intended under different forms of language and thought in the great theological systems of the past and in the teaching of the church throughout the age.177

177 Wolfhart Pannenberg, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, trans. Philip Stewart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 7.

Conclusion From his own time to the present, Herman Bavinck has been a figure who is caught between two poles. For many in his own theological tradition he was too ‘modern’.1 Leiden professor, Bernardus Eerdmans, stated that Bavinck was always too ‘orthodox’ to be modern in any recognizable sense of the word.2 However, as this project has shown throughout Bavinck’s life he attempted to be both, as Brock has stated, ‘orthodox yet modern’.3 This can be clearly seen in the way in which Bavinck engaged with the nineteenth-​ century turn to history. Thus, this book principally argued throughout that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. Bavinck’s project kept him grounded in the historical Reformed tradition while at the same time left him open for development. The impact of the turn to history was demonstrated in Bavinck’s theological methodology. This book considered the three principia of Bavinck’s theological method: Revelation, Confession, and Christian consciousness. In Chapter 1 the book looked at the nineteenth-​century turn to history to give an historical context for the project. There I argued that the rise of historicism and basic philosophical commitments connected to this intellectual revolution shaped key aspects of Bavinck’s theological methodology; namely, his use of historical theology and his attitude toward theological development. Chapter 1 considered how historicism resulted from the concern to see history secure a place as a science (Wissenschaft) in the university. It 1 James Eglinton notes that one such voice in Bavinck’s life was Lucas Lindeboom. Lindeboom was a fellow faculty member at the Theological School in Kampen during the time Bavinck taught there. He had decidedly anti-​Kuyperian tendencies and saw much of Bavinck’s project as compromising core pieces of Reformed theology. James Eglinton, Bavinck: A Critical Biography (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 136. 2 Bernardus Eerdmans, ‘Orthodox’ verweer (Leiden: S.C. van Doesburgh, 1911). Cf. James Eglinton, Bavinck, 259–​261. 3 Cory Brock, Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020).

Theology and History in the Methodology of Herman Bavinck. Cameron D. Clausing, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2024. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197665879.003.0007

Conclusion  213 demonstrated the impact of this desire on theology as a discipline and affected the way theology was understood in the nineteenth century. Chapter 1 closed by showing how this changed Bavinck’s approach to his own project. Chapter 1 worked to frame the rest of the book. Chapter 2 shifted focus to an overarching view of Bavinck’s theological methodology. This chapter built on Chapter 1 and placed Bavinck’s method into its intellectual context in an attempt to contextualize Bavinck’s method and not approach him as a flat character in history. Chapter 2 showed the ways in which historicism influenced Bavinck’s conception of theological method. I argued in Chapter 2 that the influence of historicism allowed Bavinck to approach his theological methodology as a retrieval project. This chapter set up the rest of the book and laid out the whole of Bavinck’s theological method before the book turned its focus to the three principia of Bavinck’s method: Revelation, Confession, and Christian consciousness. Chapter 3 continued to construct the larger argument of the book; namely, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. Thus, building on Chapter 2, Chapter 3 turned its focus to the first of Bavinck’s principia: Revelation. The chapter proceeded while acknowledging the risk of oversimplifying Bavinck’s theological methodology. Through looking at one principia at a time to the exclusion of the other principia, Chapter 3 argued that in his theological methodology, Bavinck envisioned Scripture as the foundation of this Trinitarian theology even while his conception of revelation maintained a Trinitarian structure. In Chapter 3, I demonstrated how Bavinck viewed all Scripture as chiefly revealing the Triune God, and, thus, for Bavinck, all Scripture is Christologically determined and Triniform. Accordingly, Bavinck contended that the missions of the Son and Spirit were communicative in nature. That is to say, Bavinck envisioned revelation as found in words but also as more than words. Looking at Bavinck’s vision of Scripture, the work of examining his Trinitarian theology began. Chapter 3 closed by showing how Bavinck focused on the incarnation and Pentecost as the pinnacle of Trinitarian revelation in which the missions ad extra and the processions ad intra displayed an interconnected nature. Therefore, what was demonstrated in this chapter was how Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology finds its principal grounding in Scripture, and Bavinck’s understanding of Scripture was coloured by the nineteenth-​century turn to history.

214  Theology History in Methodology of Bavinck Chapter 4 moved the argument of the book forward by arguing that for Bavinck ecclesiastical confession holds a ministerial authority over his theological methodology. The chapter examined the second principia in Bavinck’s theological method: Confession. The chapter considered the way that Bavinck formulated the relationship between confessional standards and Scripture. It used Bavinck’s work on the Synopsis purioris theologiae both as a test case and as an example of how Bavinck engaged in theological retrieval in his own Dutch Reformed tradition. It then continued to show how Bavinck constructed his Trinitarian theology by not only going back to Scripture but using traditional theological categories. The first three chapters shaped the form of Chapter 4, and most notably Chapter 1 determined the way in which Chapter 4 could set forth its argument. Chapter 4 demonstrated how the nineteenth-​century turn to history moulded Bavinck’s retrieval of old orthodoxy. While he saw valuable resources in the past, the old was not to be honoured just because it was old. Chapter 5 provided the final piece of the argument of this book; principally, that while not embracing all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. In Chapter 5 I examined the last of the principia in Bavinck’s theological methodology: Christian consciousness. For Bavinck, Christian consciousness was tied to the subjective nature of theology; the way in which situatedness plays a role in theological formulations. The chapter argued that the influence of historicism can be seen in Bavinck’s theological methodology through his recognition of the particularity of an individual theologian’s historical locatedness. Playing with the ideas of universality and particularity—​which were prominent in Chapter 1—​Chapter 5 showed how Bavinck conceived of the importance of a theologian’s time and place in constructing her theological reflections. He was not solely concerned with the past but also with looking for how to push theological conversation forward into the future. The chapter built its argument and capped the larger project by considering once again the philosophical and theological context in which Bavinck was writing particularly related to the concept of theological development. It then applied this to Bavinck’s Trinitarian theology. What was discovered was that even in his Trinitarian theology Bavinck saw room for greater development. Bavinck engaged with late nineteenth-​century German personalists such as I.H. Fichte and C.H. Weisse. In doing this, Bavinck argued for the incorporation of the concept

Conclusion  215 of ‘personality’ into the divine essence. This incorporation was a noteworthy doctrinal development in orthodox Reformed theology.4 Taken together these chapters sustain the argument of the book as a whole: that while Herman Bavinck did not embrace all of the relativizing implications of the movement, the role of history as a force which both shapes the present and allows for development into the future has a demonstrable influence on the theological methodology of Herman Bavinck. Bavinck’s project kept him grounded in the historical Reformed tradition while at the same time left him open for development. Bavinck was not concerned solely with a retrieval of the old just because it was old, but the aim of his theological method was to continue the development of theology. He saw theology as a constantly evolving and developing discipline and his methodology did not close himself off from the ability to develop. It was this interest in development, which was dependent on a philosophical and theological turn to history, that contributed to Bavinck’s project which was ‘orthodox yet modern’. The church is ecclesia reformata semper reformanda. Therefore, there is a sense in which the church is constantly engaged with the culture around it: understanding what its past is while looking to the future, pressing to perfection. Dogmatic perfection will not be reached until the church in all times and in all places is able to speak. Because the nature of theology is looking at the eternal while being bound by time, Bavinck declared, ‘a Christian Dogmatics does not yet exist’.5

4 It is noteworthy that neither Charles Hodge (1797–​1878) nor B.B. Warfield (1851–​1921), both Princeton theologians working during the time when ‘personalism’ grew, do not incorporate ‘personality’ into the divine essence in the same way Bavinck does. 5 Herman Bavinck, ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’, trans. Nelson Kloosterman, The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 94; ‘Het voor en tegen van een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzalmeld door Ds C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922), 60.

Appendix 1854, Dec 13—​Herman Bavinck born to Rev. Jan and Geziena Bavinck 1873—​Enrolls as a student at the Theological School in Kampen 1874—​Enrolls as a theological student at the University of Leiden 1880—​Earns doctoral degree at Leiden, passes theological exams in Kampen; declines post at the Free University of Amsterdam 1881—​Becomes pastor of a Christian Reformed congregation in Franeker 1882—​Appointed to Theological School in Kampen; declines post at the Free University of Amsterdam 1889—​Declines post at the Free University of Amsterdam 1895–​ 1901—​ Published first edition of Reformed Dogmatics (four volumes) 1902—​Accepts post at the Free University of Amsterdam 1911—​Elected to the First Chamber of Parliament; Completes second edition of Reformed Dogmatics 1921, July 29—​Herman Bavinck dies in Amsterdam

Bibliography Primary Sources (Dutch): Bavinck, Herman. ‘1878 tot 1886’. Box 346, Folder 16. Archive of Herman Bavinck. Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Aan de Lezer van DE BAZUIN’. De Bazuin (5 January 1900). Bavinck, Herman. ‘Antwoord aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Gunning Jr.’. De Vrije Kerk 10:5 (1884), 221–​227. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Antwoord aan Prof. Dr. J.H. Gunning Jr.’. De Vrije Kerk 10:6 (1884), 287–​292. Bavinck, Herman. Beginselen der psychologie. Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1897. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Calvijn’s leer over het Avondmaal’. De Vrije Kerk 13:10 (Oktober 1887), 459–​486. Bavinck, Herman. Christelijke wereldbeschouwing: rede bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op 20 October 1904. Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1904. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Christendom en natuurwetenschap’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921, 78–​104. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Confessie en Dogmatiek’. Theologische Studiën 9 (1891), 258–​275. Bavinck, Herman. De ethiek van Ulrich Zwingli. Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1880. Bavinck, Herman. ‘De Jongelingenvereeniging in hare beteekenis voor het sociale leven: Rede gehouden op de 29e bondsdag van de Nederlandschen Bond van Jongelingsvereenigingen op Geref. Grondslag’. N.p., 1917. Bavinck, Herman. De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk: Rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het rectoraat aan de Theol. School te Kampen op 18 December 1888. Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1888. Bavinck, Herman. De opvoeding der rijpere jeugd. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1916. Bavinck, Herman. ‘De Theologie van Albrecht Ritschl’. Theologische Studiën 6 (1888), 369–​403. Bavinck, Herman. De theologie van Prof. Dr. Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye: bijdrage tot de kennis der ethische theologie. Leiden: Donner, 1884. Bavinck, Herman. Der wetenschap der H. Godgeleerheid: rede ter aanvaarding van het leeraarsambt aan de Theologische School te Kampen, uitgesproken den 10 January 1883. Kampen: G.Ph. Zalsman, 1883. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Dogmatiek’. De Bazuin. 26 April 1901. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Evolutie’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921, 105–​120. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Part 1. 4th ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Part 2. 4th ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1928. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Part 3. 4th ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1929. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek Part 4. 4th ed. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1930.

220 Bibliography Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Ethiek. Edited by Dirk van Keulen. Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum, 2019. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschap’. De Vrije Kerk 18 (1892), 197–​225. Bavinck, Herman. Godsdienst en Godgeleerdheid: Rede gehouden bij de aanvaarding van het Hoogleeraarsambt in de Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam op Woensdag 17 December 1902 (Wageningen: Vada, 1902). Bavinck, Herman. Handleiding bij het Onderwijs in den Christelijken Godsdienst. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1913. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Het calvinisme in Nederland en zijne toekomst’. Tijdschrift voor Gereformeerde Theologie 3 (1896), 129–​163. Bavinck, Herman. Het Christendom. Baarn: Hollandia, 1912. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Het dualisme in de Theologie’. De Vrije Kerk 13:1. (January 1887), 11–​39. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Het rijk Gods, het hoogest goed’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, 28–​56. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Het voor en tegen van een dogmatisch systeem’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzalmeld door Ds C.B. Bavinck. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Het Wezen des Christendoms’ in Almanak van het studentencorps a/​d Vrije Universiteit. Edited by J.F. van Beeck Calkoen, J.H. Broeks Roelofs, H.C. Rutgers, et al. Amsterdam: Herdes, 1906, 251–​277. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Kennis en Leven’ in Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere Jaren, verzameld door Ds C.B. Bavinck. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1922, 203–​240. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Klassieke opleiding’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921. Bavinck, Herman. Magnalia Dei. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1931. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Manuscript “Encyclopaedie der Theologie” ’. Box 346, Folder 187. Archive of Herman Bavinck. Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Manuscript “Geschiedenis der nieuwe philosophie” ’. Delen I en ‘II. Van Kant tot dezen tijd’. Box 346, Folder 199. Archive of Herman Bavinck. Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Manuscript “Geschiedenis der wijsbegeerte na Hegel” ’. Box 346, Folder 201. Archive of Herman Bavinck. Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Manuscript “Namen Gods. Drews, Die deutschen Speculation. Opmerkingen”, met het volgende hoofdstuk en de paragrafen “Deel II. Het dogma. Hoofdstuk IV. De Deo. §20. De naam Gods” en “Godsbewijs in de philosophie” ’. Box 346, Folder 179. Archive of Herman Bavinck. Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, Netherlands. Bavinck, Herman. ‘ “Moderne Theologie” review of Wijsbegeerte van den godsdienst, vol. 1, by L.W.E. Rauwenhoff ’. De Vrije Kerk 14:6 (1888), 253–​286. Bavinck, Herman. Modernisme en Orthodoxie: rede gehouden bij de overdracht van het Rectoraat aan de Vrije Universiteit op 20 October 1911. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1911. Bavinck, Herman. Paedagogische beginselen. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1904.

Bibliography  221 Bavinck, Herman. ‘Philosophie des geloofs’ in Verzamelde opstellen op het gebied van godsdienst en wetenschap. Edited by C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1921, 9–​16. Bavinck, Herman. ‘RAPPORT in zake de voorstellen der Pariculiere Synodes rakende de Belijdenis’ In Acta der generale synode van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, gehouden te Leeuwarden van 24 augustus—​9 september 1920. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1920 152–​154. Bavinck, Herman, Ed. Synopsis purioris theologiae (Leiden: Donner, 1881). Bavinck, Herman. ‘Vergadering van Moderne Theologen’. Algemeen Handelsblad (3 May 1905). Bavinck, Herman. ‘Voorbrecht’ in Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Vol. 1. 1st ed. Kampen: J.H. Bos, 1895, iii–​v. Bavinck, Herman, Thomas Bos, et. al. ‘Advies in zake het gravamen tegen artikel XXXVI der belijdenis’. Amsterdam: Hövecker & Wormser, 1905. Bavinck, Herman and Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje. Een Leidse vriendschap: De Briefwisseling tussen Herman Bavinck en Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje, 1875–​1921. Edited by J. de Bruijn and G. Harinck. Baarn: TenHave, 1999.

Primary Sources (English Translations): Bavinck, Herman. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper’. Translated by Nelson Kloosterman. Mid-​America Journal of Theology 19 (2008), 127–​142. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church’. Translated by John Bolt. Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), 220–​251. Bavinck, Herman. Christian Worldview. Edited and translated by Nathaniel Gray Sutanto, James Eglinton, and Cory C. Brock. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Christianity and Natural Science’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 81–​104. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Classical Education’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt, translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 209–​244. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Essence of Christianity’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt, translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 33–​48. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Evolution’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt, translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 105–​118. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Foreword to the First Edition (Volume 1) of the Gereformeerde Dogmatiek’. Translated by John Bolt. Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 9–​10. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Future of Calvinism’. Translated by Geerhardus Vos. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5 (1894), 1–​24. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Kingdom of God, the Highest Good’. Translated by Nelson D. Kloosterman. The Bavinck Review 2 (2011), 133–​170. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Philosophy of Religion (Faith)’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt, translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 25–​32.

222 Bibliography Bavinck, Herman. Philosophy of Revelation: A New Annotated Edition. Edited by Cory Brock and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2018. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System’. Translated by Nelson Kloosterman. The Bavinck Review 5 (2014), 90–​103. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogamtics, Vol. 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Ethics, Vol. 1. Edited by John Bolt. .Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. Bavinck, Herman. The Sacrifice of Praise. Edited and translated by Cameron D. Clausing and Gregory Parker Jr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2019. Bavinck, Herman. ‘Theology and Religious Studies’ in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 49–​60. Bavinck, Herman. ‘The Theology of Albrecht Ritschl’. Translated by John Bolt. The Bavinck Review 3 (2012), 123–​63. Pass, Bruce. ‘Herman Bavinck’s Modernisme en Orthodoxie: A Translation’. The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 63–​114.

Secondary Sources: Abels, Paul H.A.M. and Aart de Groot. ‘The Eighteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History. Edited by Herman Selderhuis. Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 361–​434. Allen, Michael. ‘Dogmatics as ascestics’ in The Task of Dogmatics: Explorations in Theological Method. Edited by Oliver Crisp and Fred Sanders. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017, 189–​209. Allen, Michael and Scott Swain, Eds. Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Allen, Michael and Scott Swain. Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Ankersmit, F.R. Historical Representation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologia. Edited by Thomas Gilby. 60 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962. Aristotle. Posterior Analytics. Translated by Hugh Tredennick and E.S. Forster. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. Armitage, David. ‘What’s the Big Idea? Intellectual History and the Longue Durée’. History of European Ideas 38:4, 2012, 493–​507. Armitage, David and Jo Guldi. ‘The Return of the Longue Durée: An Anglo-​American Perspective’. Annales (English ed.) 70:2, 2017, 219–​247. Augustine. Confessions. Edited and translated by Carolyn J.B. Hammond. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016.

Bibliography  223 Augustine. On The Trinity. Edited by John E. Rotelle. Translated by Edmund Hill. New York: New City Press, 1990. Austin, J.L. How to do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Ayres, Lewis. ‘Augustine on the Trinity’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 123–​137. Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-​Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Bang, Carl. Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation. Abingdon: Nashville, 1971. Barth, Karl. ‘Barth in Retirement’. Time 93:4 (31 May 1963), 35–​36. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Translated by G.W. Bromiley and Harold Knight. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936–​1969. Barth, Karl. The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen, Winter Semester of 1923–​24. Edited by Dietrich Ritschl, translated by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Barth, Karl. Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Translated by Brian Cozan and John Bowden. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Die christliche Gnosis oder die christliche Religions-​Philosophie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Tübingen: Osiander, 1835. Bavinck, Jan and Helenius de Cock. ‘Inleiding’. De Getuigenis. Maandschrift in het belang van Waarheid en Godzaligheid (January 1869), 3–​4. Beeke, Joel R. Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation. New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Beiser, Frederick. After Hegel: German Philosophy, 1840–​1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014. Beiser, Frederick. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Beiser, Frederick. The German Historicist Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Beiser, Frederick. German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–​ 1801. London: Harvard University Press, 2002. Beiser, Frederick. The Romantic Imperative: The Concept of Early German Romanticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. Bergjan, Silke-​Petra. ‘Die Beschäftigung mit der Alten Kirche an deutschen Universitäten in den Umbrüchen der Auklärung’ in Zwischen Altertumswissenschaft und Theologie. Zur Relevanz der Patristik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by Christoph Marschies and Johannes van Oort. Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 31–​61. Bernheim, Ernest. Lehrbuch der historischen Methode. 6th ed. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1914. Beza, Theodore. ‘Life of John Calvin’ in Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church by John Calvin. Edited by Thomas F. Torrance. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958, xvii–​c. Blok, Josine. ‘Quests for a Scientific Mythology: F. Creuzer and K.O. Müller on History and Myth’. History and Theory 33:4 (1994), 26–​52. Boeckh, August. Gesammelte kleine Schriften. Vol. 2. Edited by Ferdinand Ascherson. Leipzig: Teubner, 1859. Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

224 Bibliography Boersma, Hans. Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Boersma, Hans. Seeing God: The Beatific Vision in Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Boethius. The Trinity is One God Not Three Gods. Translated by H.F. Stewart. London: William Heinemann, 1918. Bolt, John. ‘The Bavinck Recipe for Theological Cake’. Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 11–​17. Bolt, John. ‘Grand Rapids Between Kampen and Amsterdam: Herman Bavinck’s Reception and Influence in North America’. Calvin Theological Journal 38:2 (2003), 263–​280. Bolt, John. The Imitation of Christ Theme in the Cultural-​Ethical Ideal of Herman Bavinck. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2013. Bolt, John. A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck’s Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi: Between Pietism and Modernism. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2013. Bonaventure. Opera omnia. Edited and translated by Quaracchi Fathers. Mansfield: The Franciscan Archive, 2014. Bonaventure. Works of St. Bonaventure: Breviloguium. volume 9. Translated by Dominic V. Monti. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, St. Bonaventure University, 2005. I. ch. 3, 4. Booth, Meyrick. Rudolf Eucken: His Philosophy and Influence. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913. Bratt, James D. Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2013. Breckman, Warren. Marx, The Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Bremmer, Rolf H. Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1961. Bremmer, Rolf H. Herman Bavinck en Zijn Tijdgenoten. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1966. Brock, Cory. Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Schleiermacher. Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020. Brock, Cory and Nathaniel Gray Sutanto. ‘Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Eclecticism: On catholicity, consciousness and theological epistemology’. Scottish Journal of Theology 70:3 (2017), 310–​332. Brown, James. Subject and Object in Modern Theology. London: SCM Press, 1955. Brunner, Emil. Die Mystik und Das Wort: De Gegensatz zwischen moderner Religionsauffassung und christlichen Glauben. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1924. Burton, Simon J.G. The Hallowing of Logic: The Trinitarian Method of Richard Baxter’s Methodus Theologiae. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Bush, Michael. ‘Calvin and the Reformanda Sayings’ in Calvinus sacrarum literarum interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research. Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 285–​300. Caird, Edward. The Evolution of Religion: The Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of St. Andrews in Sessions 1891–​1892. Glasgow: Maclehose, 1983. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960. Cassirer, Ernst. The Philosophy of the Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951.

Bibliography  225 Chladenius, J.M. Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft, worinnen der Grund zu einer neuen Einsicht in allen Arten der Gelahrtheit gelegt wird. Leipzig: Friedrich Lanckischens Erben, 1752. Chladenius, J.M. Einleitung zur richtigen Auslegung vernünfftiger Reden und Schriften. Leipzig: Friedrich Lanckischens Erben, 1742. Clark, Elizabeth A. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004. Clark, Gordon. Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957. Colish, Marcia L. ‘The Roman Law of Persons and Roman History: A Case for an Interdisciplinary Approach’. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 19:1 (1974), 112–​127. Congar, Yves. True and False Reform in the Church. Translated by Paul Philibert. St. Cloud: Liturgical Press, 2011. Corr, Charles A. ‘Cartesian Themes in Wolff ’s German Metaphysics’ in Christian Wolff: 1679–​1754. Edited by Werner Schneiders. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1983, 113–​120. Corr, Charles A. ‘Christian Wolff and Leibniz’. Journal of the History of Ideas 36 (1975), 241–​262. Curran, Thomas. Doctrine and Speculation in Schleiermacher’s Glaubenslehre. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. Danielou, Jean. The Bible and Liturgy. Translated by Michael A. Mathis. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956. Daub, Carl. ‘Die Theologie und ihre Encyclopädie im Verhältniß zum akademischen Studium beider. Fragment einer Einleitung in die letztere’ in Studien. Vol. 2. Edited by Carl Daub and Friedrich Creuzer. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer, 1806, 1–​69. Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Related Writings. Translated by Desmond M. Clarke. London: Penguin Books, 1999. De Groot, A. ‘Christiaan Sepp’ in Biografich Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, 4 vols. Edited by D. Nauta. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1998, 398. De Groot, P. Hofstede. De Groninger Godgeleerdheid in Hunne Eigenaardigheid. Groningen: Scholtens, 1855. De la Saussaye, Daniël Chatepie. Verzameld werk. 3 vols. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1997–​2003. De Lubac, Henri. At the Service of the Church: Henri de Lubac Reflects on the Circumstances that Occasioned his Writings. Translated by Anne Englunch Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993. De Lubac, Henri. Paradoxes of Faith. Translated by Sadie Kreilkamp and Paul Simone. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987. DeVries, Dawn. ‘Schleiermacher’ in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, 31–​57. De Wette, W.M.L. Über Religion und Theologie. Berlin, 1815. Dilthey, Wilhelm. Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften: Versuch einer Grundlegung für das Studium der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1883. Dilthey, Wilhelm. Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Karlfried Gründer and Frithjof Rodi. 26 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Donne, John. ‘Meditations XVII’ in Devotions upon Emergent Occasions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1959, 108–​109.

226 Bibliography Doornbos, Gayle. ‘Bavinck’s Doctrine of God: Absolute, Divine Personality’. The Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 6:2 (2021), 311–​348. Eerdmans, Bernardus. ‘Orthodox’ verweer. Leiden: S.C. van Doesburgh, 1911. Eglinton, James. Bavinck: A Critical Biography. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Eglinton, James. ‘Herman Bavinck’s “My Journey to America” ’. Dutch Crossing: Journal of Low Countries Studies 41:2 (2017), 1–​14. Eglinton, James. ‘Thomas in Abraham’s Bosom: The Reception of Aquinas in Kuyper’s Encyclopedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Reception of Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, 452–​467. Eglinton, James. Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012. Eglinton, James. ‘Vox Theologiiae: Boldness and Humility in Public Theological Speech’. International Journal of Public Theology 9 (2015), 5–​28. Eitel, Adam. ‘Trinity and History: Bavinck, Hegel, and Nineteenth-​Century Doctrines of God’ in Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck: A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology. Edited by John Bolt. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen, 2011, 101–​128. Elleboogius, C.H. Disputationes theologicae in quinque libris digesta. Leeuwarden: Theo Beenderhuis, 1710. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Sovereignty: God, State, and Self. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Ermath, Michael. Wilhelm Dilthey: The Critique of Historical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Eucken, Rudolf. Main Currents of Modern Thought: A Study of the Spiritual and Intellectual Movements of the Present Day. Translated by Meyrick Booth. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Fergusson, David. Faith and Its Critics: A Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Fichte, I.H. ‘Bericht über meine philosophische Selbstbildung, als Einleitung zu den “Vermischten Schriften” und al Beitrag zur Geschichte nachhegel’scher Philosophie’, in Vermischte Schriften zur Philosophie, Theologie und Ethik. Vol. 1. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1869, 1–​118. Fichte, I.H. Die Idee der Persönlichkeit und der individuellen Fortdauer. Elberfeld: Büschler, 1834. Fichte, I.H. Sätze sur Vorschule der Theologie. Stuttgart and Tübingen: Cotta, 1826. Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. ‘Deduzierter Plan einer zu Berlin zu errichtenden höhren Lehranstalt, die in gehöriger Verbindung mit einer Akademie der Wissenschaften stehe’ in Die Idee der deutschen Universität. Edited by Ernst Anrich. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956, 30–​105. Fiorenza, Francis Schüssler. ‘Understanding God as triune’ in The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher. Edited by Jacqueline Mariña. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 171–​188. Fischer, Klaus P. ‘John Locke in the German Enlightenment: An Interpretation’. Journal of the History of Ideas 36:4 (1975), 431–​446. Flynn, Gabriel and Paul D. Murray, Eds. Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-​Century Catholic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Foucault, Michel. ‘What is Modernity’ in The Foucault Reading. Edited by Paul Rainbow. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, 32–​50.

Bibliography  227 Friedman, Russell L. Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Frijhoff, W. and M. Spies. 1650: Hard-​Won Unity. Palgrave-​Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2004. Gadamer, Hans-​Georg. Wahrheit und Methode. See Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1972. Gay, Peter. Modernism: The Lure of Heresy. New York: Random House, 2007. Gerrish, Brian A. A Prince of the Church: Schleiermacher and the Beginnings of Modern Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Gerrish, Brian A. Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century. London: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Gibson, W.R. Boyce. Rudolf Eucken’s Philosophy of Life. London: A & C Black Ltd., 1915. Gleason, Ronald. ‘The Centrality of the Unio Mystica in the Theology of Herman Bavinck’. PhD dissertation. Westminster Theological Seminary, 2001. Gödel, Kurt. ‘Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematic und verwandter Systeme I’. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38 (1931), 173–​198. Goldstein, Rebecca. Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Gore, Charles. The Incarnation of the Son of God. London: Murray, 1891. Grafton, Anthony. What was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Graham, Gordon. ‘Bavinck, Nietzsche, and Secularization’ in The Kuyper Center Review, Vol. 2: Revelation and Common Grace. Edited by John Bowlin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011, 14–​26. Green, Garrett. ‘Modernity’ in The Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology. Edited by Gareth Jones. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004, 162–​179. Green, Garrett. The Unintended Reformation: How Religious Revolution Secularized Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. Gunning Jr., J.H. ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’. De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 212–​220. Gunning Jr., J.H. ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’. De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 277–​286. Gunning Jr., J.H. ‘Aan Prof. Dr. H. Bavinck’. De Vrije Kerk 10 (1884), 314–​319. Gunning Jr., J.H. Waartoe Verwonderd?: Een Kort Woord tot toelichting van de jongste bewegingen op kerkelijk gebied, inzonderheid te ‘s Gravenhage. ‘s Gravenhage: M.J. Visser, 1864. Gunning Jr., J.H. and Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye. Het Ethische Beginsel der Theologie. Groningen: P. Noordhoff, 1877. Gunton, Colin. The Barth Lectures. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Harinck, George. ‘Herman Bavinck and the Neo-​ Calvinist Concept of the French Revolution’ in Neo-​Calvinism and the French Revolution. Edited by James Eglinton and George Harinck. London: T&T Clark, 2014, 13–​30. Harinck, George. ‘“Something that must remain, if the truth is to be sweet and precious to us”: The Reformed Spirituality of Herman Bavinck’. Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003), 248–​262. Harinck, George and Wim Berkelaar. Domineesfabriek: Geschiedenis van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen. Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2018. Harinck, George, Cornelis van der Kooi, and Jasper Vree, Eds. “Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende”: Aantekeningen van H. Bavinck over de zaak-​Netelenbos, het Schriftgezag en de Situatie van de Gereformeerde Kerken (November 1919). Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 1994.

228 Bibliography Harinck, George and Lodewijk Winkeler. ‘The Nineteenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History. Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 435–​517. Hegel, G.W.F. ‘Auszüge und Bemerkungen: Aus Schleiermachers “Glaubenslehre” Bd. 2, 1822’ in Berliner Schriften: 1818–​1831. Hamburg: Meiner, 1997, 684–​688. Hegel, G.W.F. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Peter Hodgson, translated by R.F. Brown, P.C. Hodgson, and J.M. Stewart with the assistance of H.S. Harris. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Hegel, G.W.F. Science of Logic. Translated by A.V. Miller. London: Routledge, 2002. Hegel, G.W.F. ‘The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate’ in On Christianity: Early Theological Writings. Translated by T.M. Knox. New York: Harper Torchbook Edition, 1961, 182–​301. Hegel, G.W.F. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion (Lectures of 1831) in Sämtliche Werk. Berlin: Berlag von Dunder und Humblot, 1848. Heideman, Eugene. The Relationship of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959. Heine, Heinrich. ‘Preface to the second edition’ in On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany and Other Writings. Edited by Terry Pinkard, translated by Howard Pollack-​Milgate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 4–​120. Helmer, Christine. ‘Between history and speculation: Christian trinitarian thinking after the Reformation’ in Cambridge Companion to the Trinity. Edited by Peter Phan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 149–​172. Helmer, Christine. Theology and the End of Doctrine. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014. Hepp, Valentijn. Dr Herman Bavinck. Amsterdam: Ten Have, 1921. Heppe, Heinrich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​reformirten Kirche: dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt. Elberfeld: R.L. Friedrichs, 1861. Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources. Edited by Ernst Bizer, translated by G.T. Thomson. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1950. Herling, Bradley L. The German Gita: Hermeneutics and Discipline in the German Reception of Indian Thought, 1778–​1831. New York: Routledge, 2006. Hielema, Sydney. Herman Bavinck’s Eschatological Understanding of Redemption. ThD thesis. Wycliffe College, Toronto School of Theology, 1998. Hill, Edmund. The Mystery of the Trinity. London: Chapman, 1985. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. Hodgson, Peter. Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hoekema, Anthony. Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of the Covenant. Clover: Full Bible Publications, 2007. Hoffmeister, Johannes. ‘Wissenschaft’ in Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe. Edited by Friedrich Kirchner and Carl Michaëlis. Hamburg: Meiner, 1955, 673–​674. Holloran, John Robert. ‘Professors of Enlightenment at the University of Halle’. PhD dissertation. The University of Virginia, 2000. Honig, A.G. ‘Ethisch’ of Gereformeerd?: Eene Studie. Utrecht: G.J.A. Ruys, 1914. Howard, Thomas. Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Bibliography  229 Howard, Thomas. Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W.M.L de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Origins of Nineteenth-​ Century Historical Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hütter, Reinhard and Matthew Levering, Eds. Ressourcement Thomism: Sacred Doctrine, the Sacraments, and the Moral Life: Essays in Honor of Romanus Cessario. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2010. Iggers, Georg G. ‘Historicism: The History and Meaning of the Term’. Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995), 129–​152. Irenaeus. Against the Heresies. Translated by Dominic Unger and John Dillon. New York: Paulist Press, 1992. Israel, J.I. The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall. Oxford: Clarion, 1995. Jaeger, Friedrich and Jörn Rüsen. Geschichte des Historismus. Munich: Beck, 1992. Jaeschke, Walter. Reason in Religion: The Foundations of Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion. Translated by J. Michael Stewart and Peter Hodgson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Jones, Abel J. Rudolf Eucken: A Philosophy of Life. London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1913. Jüngel, Eberhard. God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism. Translated by Darrell L. Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Kant, Immanuel. ‘The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God’ in Theoretical Philosophy 1755–​1770. Translated and edited by David Walford and Ralf Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 107–​201. Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the Limits of Reason Along. Translated by Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Kapic, Kelly. ‘Anthropology’ in Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Bruce L. McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012, 121–​148. Kerr, Fergus. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians: From Neo-​Scholasticism to Nuptial Mystery. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Kidd, Colin. The World of Mr. Casaubon: Britain’s Wars of Mythography, 1700–​1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Klempt, Adalbert. Die Säkularisierung der universalhistorischen Auffassung. Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1960. Konaris, Michael D. The Greek Gods in Modern Scholarship: Interpretation and Belief in Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-​Century Germany and Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Kontje, Todd. German Orientalisms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. Koselleck, Reinhart. ‘Standortbindung und Zeitlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur historiographischen Erschließung der geschichtlichen Welt’ in Objektivität und Parteilichkeit in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Edited by Reinhart Koselleck, Wolfgang Mommsen, and Jörn Rüsen. Munich: Deutscher-​Taschenbuch Verlag, 1977, 17–​46. Krieger, Leonard. Ranke: The Meaning of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Kuipers, Tjitze. Abraham Kuyper: An Annotated Bibliography 1857–​2010. Edited by Barend Meijer. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

230 Bibliography Kuyper, Abraham. De hedendaagsche schriftcritiek in haar bedenkelijke strekking voor de gemeente des levenden Gods. Amsterdam: Kruyt, 1881. Kuyper, Abraham. Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid. 3 vols. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1908–​1909. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism: The Stone Lectures of 1898. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008. LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York: Harper One, 1991. Larsen, Stephen. ‘Friedrich Creuzer and the Study of Antiquity’. PhD dissertation. Princeton, 2008. Lauzon, Matthew. ‘Modernity’ in The Oxford Handbook of World History. Edited by Jerry Bentley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 72–​88. Leese, Kurt. Philosophie und Theologie im Spätidealismus. Forschungen zur Auseinandersetzung von Christentum und idealistischer Philosophie im 19 Jahrhundert. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1929. Lehner, Ulrich L., Richard A. Muller, and A. G. Roeber. ‘Introduction’ in Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theology, 1600–​1800. Edited by Ulrich L. Lehner, Richard A. Muller, and A.G. Roeber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016, 1–​10. Lindeboom, Lucas. Godgeleerden. Heusden: A Gezelle Meerburg, 1894. Luther, Martin. Bondage of the Will. Translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. New York: Macmillan, 1923. Mackintosh, H.R. Types of Modern Theology: Schleiermacher to Barth. London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1937. Macmurray, John. The Self as Agent. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1957. MacSwiney, Margaret. ‘Rudolf Eucken and the Spiritual Life’. PhD dissertation. Catholic University of America, 1915. Makkreel, Rudolf. Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Manent, Pierre. The City of Man. Translated by Marc A. Lepain. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Margolis, Joseph. Historied Thought, Constructed World: A Conceptual Primer for the Turn of the Millennium. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Mariña, Jacqueline, Ed. The Cambridge Companion to Friedrich Schleiermacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Marchand, Suzanne. German Orientalism in the Age of Empire: Religion, Race, and Scholarship. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Mattson, Brian. Restored to Our Destiny: Eschatology and the Image of God in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. Leiden: Brill, 2012. McGinn, Bernard. Apocalyptic Spirituality: Treatises and Letters of Lactantius, Adso of Montier-​en-​Der, Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan spirituals, Savonarola. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. McGrath, Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2011. McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution–​A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-​First. New York: HarperOne, 2007. Meijers, S. Objectiviteit en existentialiteit: een onderzoek naar hun verhouding in de theologie van Herman Bavinck en in door hem beïnvloede concepties. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1979.

Bibliography  231 Meinecke, Friedrich. Die Entstehung des Historismus in Werk. Edited by Hans Herzfeld, Carl Hinrich, and Walther Hofer. 9 vols. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1965. Michelet, Carl Ludwig. Vorlesungen über die Persönlichkeit Gottes und Unsterblichkeit der Seele. Berlin: Ferdinand Dümmler, 1841. Milbank, John. Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Milbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, Eds. Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology. London: Routledge, 1998. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981. Mouw, Richard. Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2011. Müller, Hans. Johann Martin Chladenius (1710–​59). Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1917. Müller, Karl Otfried. Geschichte hellenischer Stämme und Städte. Vol. 1: Orchomenos und die Minyer. Breslau: Josef Max, 1820. Muller, Richard A. God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Muller, Richard A. Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Murray, Oswyn. ‘In Search of the Key to all Mythologies’ in Translating Antiquity: Antikebilder im eropäschen Kultuurtransfer. Edited by Stefan Rebenich, Barbara von Reibnitz, and Thomas Späth. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2010, 119–​132. Nellen, H.J.M. Hugo de Groot. Een leven in strijd om de vrede 1583–​1645. Amsterdam: Balans, 2007. Newman, John Henry. An Essay Concerning the Development of Christian Doctrine. London: Toovey, 1845. Nimmo, Paul. Barth: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Olabarri, Ignacio. ‘“New” New History: A Longue Durée Structure’. History and Theory 34 (1995), 1–​29. Oliphint, K. Scott. ‘Bavinck’s Realism, the Logos Principle, and Sola Scriptura’. Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2010), 359–​390. Ostaric, Lara. ‘The Concept of Life in Early Schelling’ in Interpreting Schelling: Critical Essays. Edited by Lara Ostaric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, 48–​70. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. Translated by Philip Stewart. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Parker Jr., Gregory. ‘Theological Thinking and Loving: Dogmatics and Ethics in the Theology of Herman Bavinck.’ PhD dissertation. University of Edinburgh, 2022. Pass, Bruce. The Heart of Dogmatics: Christology and Christocentrism in Herman Bavinck. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020. Pass, Bruce. ‘Herman Bavinck and the Problem of New Wine in Old Wineskins’. International Journal of Systematic Theology 17:4 (2015), 432–​449. Pass, Bruce. ‘Herman Bavinck’s Religion and Theology: An Introduction and Translation’. Reformed Theological Review 77:2 (2018), 75–​84. Peters, Ted. God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Planck, G.J. Einleitung in die theologische Wissenschaften. 2 vols. Leipzig: Liegfried Lebrecht Crusius, 1794–​1795.

232 Bibliography Poe, Shelli. Essential Trinitarianism: Schleiermacher as Trinitarian Theologian. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Polanus, Amandus. Syntagma theologiae christianae. 2 vols. Hanoviae: Typis Wechelianis, apud Claudium Marnium, & haeredes Johannis Aubrii, 1610. Polyander. ‘Catalogus disputationum facultatis theologicae inchoatarum mense Ianuario, Anni 1620’ in Orationes inaugurales a ss. theologiae professoribus & collegii illust. ordinum Hollandiae & West Frisiae moderatoribus habitae. Leiden: Jaboci Marci, 1620. Powell, Samuel. ‘Nineteenth-​Century Protestant Doctrines’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 267–​280. Powell, Samuel. The Trinity in German Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Purvis, Zachary. ‘Education and Its Institutions’ in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​ Century Christian Thought. Edited by Joel D.S. Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 305–​322. Purvis, Zachary. Theology and the University in Nineteenth-​ Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Ratzinger, Joseph. The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure. Translated by Zachary Hayes. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1989. Reeves, Marjorie. Joachim of Fiore and the Prophetic Future: A Study in Medieval Millennialism. 2nd ed. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Reill, Hans Peter. The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Richard of St. Victor. De Trinitate: Texte Critique avec Introduction, Notes et Tables. Edited by Jean Ribaillier. Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1958. Richard of St. Victor. On the Trinity: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Ruben Angelici. Eugene: Cascade, 2012. Ricoeur, Paul. ‘The Bible and Imagination’ in The Bible as a Document of the University. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. Chico: Scholars Press, 1981, 49–​75. Ricoeur, Paul. ‘Biblical Hermeneutics’. Semeia 4 (1975), 29–​148. Riedl, Matthias. Joachim von Fiore: Denker der vollendeten Menschheit. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2004. Ritschl, Albrecht. Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung. 3rd ed. Bonn: A. Marcus, 1888–​1889. Ritschl, Albrecht. ‘Über die beiden Principien des Protestantismus: Antwort auf ein 25 Jahre alte Frage’ in Gesammelte Aufsätze. Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr, 1893, 234–​247. Ritschl, Albrecht. Unterrricht in der Christlichen Religion. 6th ed. Bonn: A. Marcus, 1903. Roessingh, K.H. De modern theologie in Nederland: Hare voorbereiding en eerste periode. Groningen: Erven B. van der Kamp, 1914. Ruddies, Hartmut. ‘ “Wesensbestimmung ist Wesensgestaltung”: Der Beitrag Ernst Troeltsch zur Wesensbestimmung des Christentums’ in Das Christentum der Theologen in 20. Jahrhundert. Edited by Mariano Delgado. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000, 23–​36. Sanders, Fred. ‘The Trinity’ in Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. Edited by Kelly Kapic and Bruce McCormack. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012, 21–​46. Sanders, Fred. ‘The Trinity’ in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Edited by John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, 35–​53.

Bibliography  233 Sarisky, Darren. ‘Introduction’ in Theologies of Retrieval: An Exploration and Appraisal. Edited by Darren Sarisky. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017, 1–​6. Scheele, Meta. Wissen und Glaube in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Studien zum historischen Pyrrhonismus in Frankreich und Deutschland. Heidelberg: Winter, 1930. Schelling, F.W.J. Ideas for Philosophy of Nature as Introduction to the Study of this Science. Translated by Errol E. Harris and Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study. 3rd ed. Translated by Terrence N. Tice. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Christian Faith: A New Translation and Critical Edition. Edited by Catherine Kelsey and Terrence Tice, translated by Terrence Tice, Catherine Kelsey, and Edwina Lawler. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studium zum Behuf Einleitender Vorlesungen. Edited by Heinrich Scholz. Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1811. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On the Glaubenslehre: Two Letters to Dr. Lücke. Translated by James O. Duke and Francis Fiorenza. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1981. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Edited and translated by Richard Crouter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Schmid, Heinrich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​lutherischen Kirche: dargestellt und aus den Quellen belegt. Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer, 1863. Schmid, Heinrich. Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Edited and translated by Charles Hays and Henry Jacobs. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1899. Schmiedel, Ulrich. ‘Performative Practice: Ernst Troeltsch’s Concept(s) of Christianity’ in The Anthem Companion to Ernst Troeltsch. Edited by Christopher Adair-​Toteff. London: Anthem Press, 2017, 83–​103. Schnädelbach, Herbert. Geschichtesphilosophie nach Hegel. Freiburg: Alber, 1974. Schneider, Werner, Ed. Christian Wolff 1679–​1754. Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung. Hamburg: Meiner, 1983. Scholten, Johannes. De leer der Hervormde Kerk. Leiden: P. Engels, 1849. Scholten, Johannes. Geschiedenis der godsdienst en wijsbegeerte. Leiden: Akademische Boekhandel van P. Engels, 1863. Schubart, Karl. Über die Unvereinbarkeit der Hegelschen Staatlehre mit dem obersten Lebens: und Entwicklunsprinzip des Preusßischen Staats. Breslau: Georg Philipp Aderholz, 1839. Schweitzer, William. God is a Communicative Being: Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Schweizer, Alexander. Die Glaubenslehre der evangelische reformirten Kirche. Zurich: Orell, Füessli und Comp., 1844. Schweizer, Alexander. Die protestantischen Centraldogmen in ihrer Entwicklung innerhalb der reformierten Kirche. Zurich: Orell, Füessli und Comp., 1854. Sepp, Christiaan. Het Godgeleerd Onderwijs in Nederland, Gedurende de 16e en 17e eeuw. 2 vols. Breuk en Smits: Leiden, 1873. Sinnema, Donald. ‘The Canons of Dordt: From Judgment on Arminianism to Confessional Standard’ in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt. Edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 291–​312. Skinner, Quentin. ‘Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas’ in Meaning & Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Edited by James Tully. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, 29–​67.

234 Bibliography Spaemann, Robert. Persons: The Difference between ‘Someone’ and ‘Something’. Translated by Oliver O’Donovan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Stanglin, Keith D. ‘Arminius and Arminians: An Over of Current Research’ in Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe. Edited by Th. Marius van Leeuwen, Keith D. Stanglin, and Marijke Tolsma. Leiden: Brill, 2009, 1–​24. Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus Critically Examined. Translated by Marian Evans. New York: Calvin Blanchard, 1860. Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Sutanto, Nathaniel Gray. God and Knowledge: Herman Bavinck’s Theological Epistemology. London: T&T Clark, 2020. Svenungsson, Jayne. Divining History: Prophetism, Messianism and the Development of the Spirit. Translated by Stephen Donovan. Oxford: Berghahn, 2016. Swain, Scott. ‘Divine Trinity’ in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Edited by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016, 78–​106. Swain, Scott. ‘The Trinity in the Reformers’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 227–​239. Swain, Scott. Trinity, Revelation, and Reading: A Theological Introduction to the Bible and its Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Swedenborg, Emanuel Scripture confirmations of New Church doctrine: Dicta probantia. Translated by John Whitehead. London: Swedenborg Society, 1962. Swedenborg, Emanuel. The True Christian Religion. Translated by Jonathan Rose. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1896. Sykes, Stephen. The Identity of Christianity: Theologians and the Essence of Christianity from Schleiermacher to Barth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Sytsma, David. ‘Herman Bavinck’s Thomistic Epistemology: The Argument and Sources of his Principia of Science’ in Five Studies in the Thought of Herman Bavinck: A Creator of Modern Dutch Theology. Edited by John Bolt. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen, 2011, 1–​56. Taylor, Charles. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Tennent, Timothy. Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church is Influencing the Way we Think about and Discuss Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Tertullian. The Prescription Against Heretics. Translated by Peter Holmes. ANF 3.246, 2018. te Velde, Dolf. The Doctrine of God in Reformed Orthodoxy, Karl Barth, and the Utrecht School. Leiden: Brill, 2013. te Velde, Dolf. ‘Introduction’ in Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/​ Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation. Vol. 1. Edited by Dolf te Velde, Willem J. van Asselt, William den Boer, and Riemer A. Faber. Translated by Riemer A. Faber. Leiden: Brill, 2014, 1–​20. te Velde, Rudi A. ‘The Divine Person(s): Trinity, Person, and Analogous Naming’ in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity. Edited by Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 359–​370. Tice, Terrence. ‘Preface’ in Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study. 3rd ed. Translated by Terrence Tice. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011, ix–​xiv.

Bibliography  235 Troeltsch, Ernst. ‘The Dogmatics of the “Religionsgeschichtliches Schule” ’. American Journal of Theology 17:1 (1913), 1–​21. Troeltsch, Ernst. ‘Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology (1898)’ in Religion in History. Translated by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991, 11–​32. Troeltsch, Ernst. ‘Der Historismus und seine Probleme’ in Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Hans Baron. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912. Troeltsch, Ernst. ‘What does “Does the Essence of Christianity” Mean?’ in Writings on Theology and Religion. Edited by Robert Morgan and Micahel Pye, translated by Michael Pye. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977, 124–​181. Trueman, Carl. The Creedal Imperative. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Twesten, August. D. August Twesten nach Tagebüchern und Briefen. Edited by C. F. Georg Heinrici. Berlin: Hertz, 1889. Twesten, August. Vorlesungen über die Dogmatik der evangelisch-​lutherischen Kirche. Hamburg: Perthes, 1826. van Asselt, Willem J. and Paul H.A.M. Abels. ‘The Seventeenth Century’ in Handbook of Dutch Church History. Edited by Herman Selderhuis. Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 259–​360. van Asselt, Willem J. and Pieter L. Rouwendal. ‘The State of Scholarship: From Discontinuity to Continuity’ in Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Press, 2011, 1–​9. van Bekkum, Koert. ‘Herman Bavinck’s Use of Scripture’ in Herman Bavinck: Centenary Essays. Edited by Bruce Pass. Leiden: Brill, Forthcoming. van den Belt, Henk. The Authority of Scripture in Reformed Theology: Truth and Trust. Leiden: Brill, 2008. van den Belt, Henk. “Herman Bavinck’s Appropriation of Reformed Sources”, paper presented at Bavinck Centenary Conference. Brisbane, Australia, December 2021. van der Kooi, Cornelius. ‘The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’. Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 103–​112. van der Linde, S. ‘Joannes Henricus Scholten’ in Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme. Edited by D. Nauta. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1978, 320. van Deursen, A. Th. Bavianen en Slijkgeuzen. Kerk en kerkvolk ten tijde van Maurits en Oldenbarnevelt. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1974. van Deursen, A. Th. Maurits van Nassau 1567–​ 1625. De winnaar die faalde. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 2000. van Deursen, A.Th. Plain Lives in a Golden Age: Popular Culture, Religion and Society in Seventeenth-​century Holland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. van Drunen, David. ‘“The Kingship of Christ is Twofold”: Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms in the Thought of Herman Bavinck’. Calvin Theological Journal 45:1 (2010), 165–​176. van Eijnatten, Joris. ‘History, Reform, and Aufklärung: German Theological Writing and Dutch Literary Publicity in the Eighteenth Century’. Journal for the History of Modern Theology/​Zeitschrift für Neure Theologiegeschichte 7:2 (2000), 173–​204. van Keulen, Dirk. Bijbel en dogmatiek: Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik in het dogmatisch werk van A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 2003. van Oosterzee, J.J. Christelijke Dogmatiek: Een Handboek voor Academisch Onderwijs en Eigen Oefening. 3 vols. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1870–​1872. van Prinsterer, G. Groen. Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland. Gravenhage: D.A. Daamen, 1872.

236 Bibliography Vanderlaan, Eldred. Protestant Modernism in Holland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924. Vanhoozer, Kevin. Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Vanhoozer, Kevin. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Vanhoozer, Kevin. First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002. Veenhof, C. ‘Uit het leven van de Theologische Hogeschool 6’. De Reformatie 30 (1955). Veenhof, Jan. ‘De God van de filosofen en de God van de bijbel’ in Ontmoetingen met Herman Bavinck. Edited by George Harinck and Gerrit Neven. Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2006, 219–​234. Veenhof, Jan. Revelatie en inspiratie: De openbarings-​en schriftbeschouwing van Herman Bavinck in vergelijking met die van de ethische theologie. Amsterdam: Buijten and Schipperheijn, 1968. von Harnack, Adolf. Das Wesen des Christentums. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1900. von Harnack, Adolf. What is Christianity? Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders. 5th ed. London: Ernest Benn, 1958. von Hartmann, Eduard. Philosophie de Unbewussten. Leipzig: V. Friedrich, 1869. von Hartmann, Eduard. Philosophy of the Unconscious. Translated by William Chatterton Coupland. London: Trübner, 1884. von Ranke, Leopold. Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt, 1885. von Ranke, Leopold. ‘Idee der Universalhistorie’ in Aus Werk und Nachlass. 4 vols. Edited by V. Doterweich and W.P. Fuchs. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1965, 72–​89. Vos, Arvin. ‘Knowledge According to Bavinck and Aquinas’ (Part I). The Bavinck Review 6 (2015), 9–​36. Vos, Arvin. ‘Knowledge According to Bavinck and Aquinas’ (Part II). The Bavinck Review 7 (2016), 8–​62. Vroom, J. Henk. ‘Scripture Read and Interpreted: The Development of the Doctrine of Scripture and Hermeneutics in Gereformeerde Theology in the Netherlands’. Calvin Theological Journal 28:2 (1993), 352–​371. Wach, Joachim. Das Verstehen: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der hermeneutischen Theorie im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1933. Walaeus, Johannes. ‘Vita Antonii Walaei’ in Antonius Walaeus, Opera Omnia. Vol. 1. 2 vols. Leiden: A. Wyngaerden, 1647–​1648, 7–​27. Walls, Andrew. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Webster, John. Barth. London: Continuum, 2000. Webster, John. Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics. Vol. 2. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. Webster, John. ‘ “It was the Will of the Lord to Bruise Him”: Soteriology and the Doctrine of God’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016, 143–​158. Webster, John. ‘Omnia. . . Pertractantur in Sacra Doctrina sub Ratione Dei: On the Matter of Christian Theology’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016, 3–​10. Webster, John. ‘Theological Theology’ in Confessing God: Essays in Christian Dogmatics II. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016, 11–​32.

Bibliography  237 Webster, John. ‘Theologies of Retrieval’ in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Edited by Kathryn Tanner, John Webster, and Iain Torrance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, 583–​599. Webster, John. ‘What Makes Theology Theological?’ in God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016, 213–​224. Weinstein, Barbara. ‘History Without a Cause? Grand Narratives, World History, and the Postcolonial Dilemma’. International Review of Social History 50 (2005), 71–​93. Weisse, C.H. Die Idee der Gottheit: eine philosophische Abhandlung, als wissenschaftliche Grundlegung zur Philosophie. Dresden: Ch. F. Grimmer, 1833. Weisse, C.H. ‘Über die eigentliche Grenze des Pantheismus und des philosophischen Theismus (1833)’ Religiöse Zeitschrift für das katholische Deutschland. Dresden: Ch. F. Grimmer, 1833, vol. 1, 31–​51, 143–​153, 227–​239; vol. 2, 99–​119, 244–​269. Welch, Claude. In This Name: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Wielema, Michael R. ‘Leibniz and Wolff in the Netherlands. The Eighteenth-​Century Dutch Translations of Their Writings’. Studia Leibnitiana 25:1 (1993), 55–​69. Williams, A.N. ‘The Future of the Past: The Contemporary Significance of the Nouvelle Théologie’. International Journal of Systematic Theology 7 (2005), 347–​361. Williamson, George. The Longing for Myth in Germany: Religion and Aesthetic Culture from Romanticism to Nietzsche. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Wolff, Christian. ‘Deutsche Logik’ in Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Hans Werner Arndt. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. Wolff, Christian. Preliminary Discourse on Philosophy in General. Translated by Richard J. Blackwell. Indianapolis: Bobbs-​Merrill, 1963. Wolff, Christian. ‘Vernünftige Gedanke von den Kräften des menschlichen Verstandes’, ch. 11–​12 in Gesammelte Werke I/​1. Edited by Hans Werner Arndt. Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. Wood Jr., John Halsey. ‘Church, Sacrament, and Society: Abraham Kuyper’s Early Baptismal Theology, 1859–​1847’. Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 275–​296. Xu, Ximian. Theology as the Science of God: Herman Bavinck’s Wetenschappelijke Theology for the Modern World. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022. Yarnell, Malcolm. The Formation of Christian Doctrine. Nashville: Boosey and Hawkes, 2007. Zachhuber, Johannes. ‘The Historical Turn’ in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​ Century Christian Thought. Edited by Joel Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017, 52–​71. Zachhuber, Johannes. Theology as Science in Nineteenth-​Century Germany: From F.C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Zuck, Lowell H. ‘Heinrich Heppe: A Melanthonian Liberal in the Nineteenth-​Century German Reformed Church’. Church History 51:4 (1982), 419–​433. De Heraut. 24 April, 1881. De Heraut. 15 May, 1881. De Standaard 5 April, 1881. Maandelyksche uittreksels of boekzaal der geleerde waereld 150. Amsterdam: Dirk onder de Linden en Zoon, 1790. Synopsis purioris theologiae =​Synopsis of a Purer Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by Dolf te Velde. Translated by Reimer A. Faber. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. absolute, 17–​18, 28, 36–​37, 40, 45–​46, 76n.78, 79–​80, 102–​3, 110, 116, 119, 127, 160–​61, 164, 170–​71, 192–​93, 192–​93n.82, 194–​95, 199–​200, 201, 202, 203–​6, 207–​9, 209n.171 ad extra, 7–​8, 12–​13, 71–​72, 99–​100, 116–​ 17n.96, 123, 127–​28, 129–​30, 213 ad intra, 7–​8, 12–​13, 71–​72, 99–​100, 116–​17n.96, 123, 127–​28, 129–​ 30, 213 anthropology, 45–​46, 137–​38 Aquinas, Thomas, 121–​22, 129, 142, 143, 162–​64, 162n.113, 167–​68, 169, 208–​9 Aristotle, 24, 67–​68, 162n.113, 166 Augustine, 11, 22–​23, 50, 55–​56, 106, 116, 122n.116, 129, 142, 143, 158–​61, 162–​63, 164–​66, 167n.141, 168–​69, 177n.13, 198 aύτόπιστος, 82–​83, 141, 141n.33, 146–​47 Ayres, Lewis, 164 Barth, Karl, 77–​78, 90–​91n.141, 116–​ 17n.96, 122–​23, 169 Bavinck, Herman, 1–​14, 2n.4, 2n.7, 6–​7n.29, 8n.32, 16–​17, 19n.14, 20, 21–​22, 24–​25, 25n.43, 28n.61, 29–​ 32, 30n.70, 32n.80, 33, 34, 36–​37, 41, 41n.125, 42–​43, 45n.139, 46, 47–​53, 50n.161, 54–​58, 56n.191, 59–​68, 59nn.2–​3, 61n.8, 69, 70–​72, 73, 73n.61, 73–​74n.62, 74, 75–​85, 76n.78, 81n.96, 82n.101, 86–​88, 89, 89n.134, 90, 91–​93, 91n.142, 94–​ 96, 97–​100, 98–​99nn.8–​9, 99n.11, 101–​4, 101n.14, 105–​6, 105n.36, 105n.38, 107–​11, 111n.64, 112–​17,

116–​17n.96, 118–​21, 118nn.103–​4, 121n.115, 122–​23, 123n.125, 124–​ 26, 125n.134, 126n.137, 127–​28, 129–​30, 131, 132–​35, 136–​42, 140n.29, 141n.33, 142n.38, 143–​45, 146–​50, 149n.65, 152, 153, 153n.83, 154, 155–​57, 157n.95, 158–​69, 158n.98, 160n.105, 164n.123, 170–​ 71, 172, 173–​76, 174n.5, 177–​80, 178n.16, 181, 182, 184–​86, 184n.46, 187–​94, 188–​89n.65, 189n.67, 192–​93n.82, 197–​201, 202, 203–​5, 204n.144, 205n.147, 206–​7, 208–​11, 209n.171, 212–​15, 212n.1, 215n.4 Bavinck, Jan, 1–​2, 3, 5–​6, 193–​94 Beginselen der psychologie, 79n.88, 199n.115 Beiser, Frederick, 18–​19, 27, 28–​29, 34, 201 Bolt, John, 6–​7, 108n.55, 155–​56n.91 Bonaventure, 161–​62, 162n.113, 167–​ 68, 169 Bratt, James, 97n.1 Brock, Cory, 7–​8, 79n.89, 185, 192–​ 93n.82, 205n.147, 212 Calvin, John, 41, 78, 89–​90, 106, 129, 157n.95, 160–​61, 163, 164–​65, 167n.141, 168–​69, 187–​88 Calvinism, 44, 97–​98, 150, 185–​86 Catholicism (Roman), 80, 91–​92, 135, 136, 150, 155, 165, 186 Catholicity, 8–​9, 14–​15, 60, 112, 133, 137–​38, 157, 158, 159, 169, 170–​71, 185, 190–​91 central dogma, 40, 98–​99n.9, 108–​11, 108n.55, 111n.64, 120–​21

240 Index Chladenius, J.M., 23–​24n.37, 27–​31, 27n.56, 27–​28n.58 Christ, 22–​23, 33, 37, 47–​50, 54–​56, 74–​ 75, 86–​87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 101–​2, 103–​ 4, 105n.36, 108–​11, 113n.76, 115–​16, 118n.103, 119, 121–​22, 123n.125, 124, 125, 126–​27, 128, 129–​31, 132n.2, 133–​34, 137–​38, 143–​44, 148, 159, 167–​68, 177, 180, 185–​86, 195, 197, 207 Christelijke wereldbeschouwing, 5n.23, 10n.39, 50n.162, 55n.186, 63n.11, 63n.12, 68n.38, 69, 69n.43, 71n.51, 102n.22 Confession, 10, 12, 13, 42, 67, 79, 82–​84, 85, 86–​87, 95, 123n.125, 132–​34, 137–​41, 142–​43, 145–​47, 145n.51, 148–​49, 156–​58, 159, 170, 171, 173–​ 75, 176, 177, 178–​79, 186, 189–​91, 208–​9, 210–​11, 212–​13, 214 Belgic Confession, 3n.10, 102–​3, 132–​ 33, 150–​51, 170, 172–​74 confessional, 8, 13–​14, 20, 29–​30, 33, 60–​61, 82–​83, 87–​88n.124, 132–​33, 134–​35, 139, 145, 146, 149–​51, 151n.71, 170, 214 confessions, 3, 8–​9, 13, 60, 62–​63, 82–​ 83, 87, 87–​88n.124, 95, 133, 136–​39, 141, 142, 153n.83, 170–​71 consciousness, 33, 41, 44–​45, 52–​53, 73–​ 74, 77, 82, 85–​86, 90–​91, 94, 112, 131, 131n.157, 146, 178–​79, 189, 192–​ 93n.82, 201, 209n.171 Christian Consciousness, 12, 13–​14, 42, 86–​87, 92–​94, 100, 131, 133–​34, 171, 173–​76, 177–​79, 189–​90, 210–​11, 212–​13, 214–​15 historical consciousness, 32–​33, 148, 158 individual consciousness, 49, 62–​63, 78, 79, 80, 82, 88, 95–​96 self-​consciousness, 192–​93, 192–​ 93n.82, 201–​2, 209 creeds, 3, 8–​9, 13, 60–​61, 62–​63, 81n.96, 87, 133, 137–​38, 142, 160n.105, 170–​ 71, 173–​74, 176 Apostles’ Creed, 159 Athanasian creed, 160n.105 Nicene Creed, 159–​60

Descartes, Rene, 24, 25–​26, 154 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 18n.7, 28n.62, 51–​53, 56, 56n.191, 60–​61, 148, 158–​59 Dorner, Isaak, 184n.44, 205n.147 Eglinton, James, 1n.1, 2n.5, 2n.7, 7–​8, 17n.4, 66n.26, 69, 70, 71–​72, 111, 115, 129–​30, 142n.39, 144n.47, 149n.65, 159, 160, 178n.17, 212n.1 eschatology, 5, 137–​38 essence, 18–​19, 21–​23, 56, 70, 92, 114, 121–​22, 135, 141, 160, 162–​66, 167–​ 68, 169, 192–​93n.82, 194, 198–​99, 200–​1, 203–​4, 205n.147, 208, 209–​10, 209n.171, 214–​15, 215n.4 essence of Christianity, 74–​75, 109–​11, 119, 126, 129–​30, 160–​61, 182–​83, 188, 189n.66 Eucken, Rudolf, 51–​52, 56, 60–​61, 66–​67, 66n.28, 148, 158–​59 Fichte, I.H., 122n.119, 127, 203–​5, 204n.146, 207–​8, 209, 214–​15 Fichte, J.G., 178–​79, 182–​83, 184n.44, 203–​4, 205, 206 Harinck, George, 70, 155–​56, 155–​56n.91 Hegel, G.W.F., 3, 6–​7, 9–​10, 17–​18, 42, 47, 53, 67, 118–​19, 127, 140–​41, 176, 181–​82, 184n.44, 193–​97, 199–​201, 202, 203, 204–​5, 206, 207, 210 Heidelberg Catechism, 3n.10, 119n.108, 150–​51 Helmer, Christine, 177 historicism, 8–​9, 12, 17–​19, 20–​24, 23n.35, 26, 28n.62, 30, 31–​32, 33, 42–​43, 50n.161, 56–​58, 61–​63, 84n.113, 95–​ 96, 100, 123, 131, 133–​34, 147, 148, 155, 156–​57, 158–​59, 168–​69, 171, 175–​76, 177–​78, 182, 187–​88, 190–​ 91, 192–​93, 210–​11, 212–​13, 214–​15 historicist, 23–​24, 23–​24n.37, 27, 28–​29, 28n.62, 37–​38, 40, 45, 47–​48, 57–​58, 60–​61, 83, 134–​35, 158 history, 2–​3, 8–​12, 13, 16–​19, 20–​24, 25–​33, 34–​38, 39–​40, 41–​43, 45–​58, 60–​61, 62–​63, 66n.28, 71, 84n.113, 87, 87–​88n.124, 93, 93n.151, 95–​96,

Index  241 99–​102, 104, 105n.38, 107, 112, 113–​ 14, 113n.76, 116, 120, 123, 123n.125, 126, 127, 129, 130–​31, 133–​34, 136, 143–​44, 147, 148, 149–​50, 152, 155, 156–​57, 158, 171, 176–​80, 181, 182–​ 84, 184n.44, 188–​89n.65, 191–​92, 194–​96, 197–​98, 201, 210–​11, 212–​15 idealism, 45–​46, 50–​51, 142n.38, 199–​ 200, 204 absolute idealism, 76n.78, 192–​93n.82, 201, 204–​5, 206 German idealism, 44–​46 Romantic idealism, 44–​45, 51–​52, 54, 56, 67–​68, 72, 148, 158–​59 subjective idealism, 192–​93n.82 Junius, Franciscus, 20, 73, 73n.61 Kant, Immanuel, 3, 17–​18, 52–​53, 62–​63, 66–​67, 98, 101n.14, 138–​39, 140–​41, 199–​200, 204, 205–​6 Kennis en leven, 10n.39, 42n.128, 69n.39, 106n.45, 133n.5, 174n.6, 192–​ 93n.82, 215n.5 Kingdom of God, 64–​65, 110, 126, 192–​93n.82 Kuenen, Abraham, 3–​4, 47, 57–​58, 123n.125, 124–​25, 137–​38 Kuyper, Abraham, 4–​5, 19, 51–​52, 59, 59nn.1–​2, 65–​67, 66n.25, 66n.28, 73–​74, 97–​98, 97n.1, 132–​33, 137–​38, 143–​44, 147–​48, 150 Leiden Synopsis (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae or Synopsis of Purer Theology), 4, 13, 21, 46, 134–​35, 147–​ 51, 149n.65, 152, 153, 154, 155–​57, 156n.92, 167, 170–​71, 184–​85, 214 Logos, 22–​23, 56, 73–​74, 74n.65, 75, 76, 102–​4, 107, 110–​11, 129–​31 metaphysics, 24–​25, 178–​79 missions, 12–​13, 99–​100, 113–​15, 116–​ 17n.96, 119–​20, 121–​23, 127–​28, 129–​30, 213 modern, modernism, 1–​2, 1n.1, 2n.5, 3–​4, 5–​9, 10–​11, 19, 20n.20, 21, 32–​33, 34,

35, 40, 41, 46, 54, 56–​57, 59n.2, 62–​ 63, 66–​67, 66n.28, 68, 72, 73–​74n.62, 76n.78, 78–​79, 80, 91, 95–​96, 97–​98, 112, 114, 124n.132, 133, 134–​35, 137–​38, 142n.38, 149–​50, 149n.65, 149n.66, 154, 155, 156–​57, 170–​71, 179n.20, 184–​85, 187n.58, 191–​93, 192–​93n.82, 196–​97, 203–​4, 208–​9, 212, 215 philosophy, 7–​8, 66n.28, 67, 71–​72, 127, 197–​98 Modern theology, 19n.15, 33, 46, 46n.144, 47, 60, 65, 137–​38, 155, 155n.88 Muller, Richard, 72n.57, 73–​74n.62, 153n.82 neo-​Calvinist, Neo-​Calvinism, 32–​33, 162, 186 Netelenbos, Jan, 144–​45, 145n.51, 173, 174–​75, 174n.5 organic, 7–​8, 8n.32, 13–​14, 47–​49, 57–​58, 61, 67–​68, 68n.37, 69, 70–​72, 73, 76–​77, 76n.78, 78, 85, 86–​87, 92–​93, 95–​96, 100, 108–​9, 112, 124, 138–​40, 160, 184–​85, 188–​89, 192–​93n.82 organic inspiration, 102–​3, 144 organicism, 70–​72, 133–​34, 146, 176, 177, 184–​85, 190–​91 organic whole, 120, 123, 124 organism, 7–​8, 12, 13–​14, 54, 67–​68, 69, 70, 86–​87, 92, 105, 124, 184–​ 85, 187–​88 Pass, Bruce, 7–​8, 49n.159, 67, 69, 76n.78, 79n.89, 102–​3, 103n.29, 106, 111n.64 person, 33, 49–​50, 56, 74–​75, 77, 78–​79, 91, 110, 118n.103, 119, 129, 130–​31, 137, 143n.40, 160, 162n.113, 165, 167–​69, 180, 196, 197, 198–​99, 207–​ 10, 209n.171 personality, 13–​14, 127, 141–​42, 176, 189–​90, 193–​94, 197–​98, 200–​1, 202, 203–​5, 205n.147, 207–​11, 209n.171, 214–​15, 215n.4 absolute, 192–​93, 203–​5, 205n.147, 206, 208

242 Index philosophy, 11–​12, 21–​22, 24–​25, 26–​ 27n.53, 28–​29, 28n.62, 39, 50, 51–​52, 53, 54–​55, 63, 64, 67, 68, 73, 97–​98, 136–​37, 140–​41, 153–​54, 178–​79, 184n.44, 190–​91, 197–​98, 199–​201, 202, 204, 204n.144, 205, 206 Philosophy of Revelation, 50–​51, 97–​98 principia, 12, 54, 61–​63, 67–​69, 72–​74, 75, 76–​77, 78–​79, 80–​81, 83, 84, 85–​86, 91, 92–​93, 95–​96, 100, 107–​8, 131, 138–​40, 171, 212, 213–​15 principium, 13–​14, 72–​74, 73–​74n.62, 74n.65, 75–​76, 77–​78, 79, 80–​82, 83, 84, 85–​87, 88, 89, 90, 91–​93, 99–​100, 119, 131, 133–​34, 139, 160–​61, 173–​ 74, 175–​76, 188–​89, 190, 210 processions, 12–​13, 99–​100, 116–​17n.96, 121–​23, 127, 213 progressive, 42, 61–​63, 77–​78, 95–​96, 126, 174–​75, 182–​83, 185 The Pros and Cons of a Dogmatic System, 174–​75 Purvis, Zachary, 182–​83, 183n.37 realism, 76n.78, 192–​93n.82 Reformed Dogmatics, 5, 40–​41, 48–​50, 63, 66n.28, 86, 98–​99n.9, 101–​2, 101n.14, 105, 108–​10, 120–​21, 137, 146, 156n.92, 165, 203–​4, 209 Reformed orthodoxy, 6–​7, 9–​10, 21, 73, 149n.65, 156–​57, 156n.93, 184–​85 Reformed theology, 1, 8–​9, 20, 26–​27n.53, 60, 78, 82–​83, 88, 141, 147, 149, 149n.65, 151, 152, 153n.83, 160, 188–​ 89n.65, 203, 212n.1, 215 revelation, 12–​13, 37–​38, 48–​50, 54–​55, 56, 63, 73–​74, 75, 75n.74, 76, 80–​82, 85–​87, 90, 91, 92, 95, 97–​100, 99n.11, 101–​2, 103–​4, 105–​6, 105n.36, 105n.38, 107–​8, 109–​11, 112–​16, 116–​17n.96, 117, 118n.105, 119–​21, 122–​23, 124–​25, 126, 127, 129–​31, 131n.157, 133–​34, 136, 137–​38, 153–​ 54, 155–​56, 157, 161, 171, 175, 189, 192–​93n.82, 197, 203–​4, 212–​13 revelational, 204–​5, 208 self-​revelation, 110, 119–​20, 127 Romanticism, 34, 34n.86, 50–​51

Sanders, Fred, 95–​96, 127 Schelling, F.W.J., 37n.104, 47, 67–​68, 69, 70, 140–​41, 184n.44, 199–​200, 204 Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 2–​3, 17–​18, 32–​34, 35–​43, 37n.104, 44–​45, 47, 56–​58, 60–​61, 67, 72, 79, 80–​81, 86–​87, 91n.142, 93, 93n.151, 94–​96, 105n.36, 118–​19, 127, 140–​41, 169, 175, 176, 178–​80, 180n.29, 181–​82, 192–​93n.82, 193–​94, 195–​97, 205, 206, 207–​8, 207n.155 Scholten, J.H., 3–​4, 45–​47, 45n.139, 70–​72, 118–​19, 124–​25, 137–​38 science, 2–​3, 8, 11, 17–​18, 18n.7, 21, 23–​ 29, 23–​24n.37, 28n.62, 30–​33, 30n.70, 31n.73, 34, 38–​40, 42–​43, 50–​54, 57–​58, 61–​65, 64n.18, 70, 73–​74, 76n.78, 81, 90, 95–​96, 107, 126–​27, 136–​37, 138–​39, 142n.38, 146n.54, 148, 155, 158, 177, 179, 184, 189, 189n.67, 212–​13 Scripture, 8, 12–​14, 20, 29–​30, 37–​38, 49, 60, 60n.5, 71, 72–​74, 76, 76n.78, 77–​78, 79–​84, 85, 86–​87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92–​93, 94–​96, 98–​100, 98–​99n.9, 102–​4, 103n.29, 105–​6, 105n.38, 108–​9, 111, 112–​16, 118–​20, 121, 121n.115, 122–​25, 125n.134, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132–​35, 136–​42, 144–​47, 145n.51, 153n.83, 155–​57, 160–​62, 165, 170–​71, 172, 174–​75, 174n.5, 178–​79, 188–​89, 194–​95, 198, 210–​11, 213–​14 secularization, 45–​46, 64 sin, 55–​56, 65–​66, 103–​4, 126–​27, 189, 190 speculative theism, 203–​4, 205, 206 subject–​object, 62–​63, 66–​68, 66n.28, 72, 73, 76–​77, 92, 95–​96 Sutanto, Nathaniel Gray, 7–​8, 63n.13, 71–​72, 76n.78, 185, 192–​93n.82, 209n.171 theological method/​methodology, 8–​10, 11–​14, 16–​17, 21, 31–​32, 43, 57–​58, 60, 61–​63, 76–​78, 79, 80–​81, 84, 85, 86–​88, 90, 91, 92–​93, 95–​96, 99–​100, 107–​8, 113–​14, 121, 130, 131, 133–​35, 138–​39, 141, 141n.33,

Index  243 146, 147, 156–​57, 171, 173–​76, 177–​78, 188–​89, 190, 192–​93, 210–​ 11, 212–​15 theology proper, 121–​22, 137–​38, 190–​91, 192–​93n.82, 203–​4 Trendelenburg, F.A., 51–​52, 148 Trinity, 7–​8, 9–​10, 12–​13, 22–​23, 49–​50, 71–​72, 93, 94–​96, 98–​100, 98n.8, 104, 105–​6, 107, 108, 109–​11, 113–​14, 115–​16, 116–​17n.96, 117, 118–​22, 124, 125n.134, 129–​30, 133, 140–​41, 157, 159–​63, 160n.105, 166n.133, 167–​68, 169, 176, 182, 193–​97, 198–​ 99, 200–​1, 210–​11 Troeltsch, Ernst, 9–​10, 18–​19, 33–​34n.85, 42, 98n.8, 123, 184n.44, 188 unity-​in-​diversity, 70–​71, 160 university, 11, 14–​15, 24–​25, 35, 38, 52–​53, 64–​66, 118–​19, 142n.38, 177–​79, 181, 182–​84, 186, 193–​94, 212–​13 Free University of Amsterdam, 4–​6, 14, 59n.1, 109–​10, 142n.38, 186

University of Leiden, 1–​4, 5–​6, 45–​46, 46n.144, 47, 150–​51, 192–​93n.82 Van den Belt, Henk, 6–​7n.29, 72n.57, 89, 127n.144 Van der Kooi, Cornelis, 88, 90, 91 Veenhof, Jan, 6–​7, 69, 108n.55 Von Hartmann, Eduard, 67–​68, 192–​93n.82 Webster, John, 10n.39, 62–​63, 64n.18, 121–​23 Weisse, C.H., 86n.119, 203–​5, 205n.147, 207–​8, 209, 214–​15 wetenschap, 139n.25, 155n.89, 184, 184n.46, 187–​88 Wissenschaft, 18–​19, 21, 23–​24, 23–​ 24n.37, 30–​31, 35, 176, 177, 182–​84, 184n.44, 190–​91, 212–​13 Wolff, Christian, 24–​27, 25n.46, 26–​ 27n.53, 29nn.63–​64 Zachhuber, Johannes, 11–​12, 34–​35