The Kuyper Center Review

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Contents

Editorial Introduction...................................................................................................................viiiContributors.............................................................................................................................xRevelation and Grace in Herman Bavinck Jan Veenhof......................................................................................3Bavinck, Nietzsche, and Secularization Gordon Graham....................................................................................14Why Was Bavinck in Need of a Philosophy of Revelation? George Harinck...................................................................27An Alternative Approach to Apologetics Henk van den Belt................................................................................43The Promise of Herman Bavinck's Doctrine of Revelation: Theology beyond Dogmatism and Relativism Jeffrey S. Hocking.....................61Restoration and Renewal: The Nature of Grace in the Theology of Herman Bavinck Jon Stanley..............................................81To Be or to Become — That Is the Question: Locating the Actualistic in Bavinck's Ontology James Eglinton..........................105Bavinck's "Revelation and the Future": A Centennial Retrospective Brian G. Mattson......................................................126Love and Law: Some Thoughts on Judaism and Calvinism Leora Batnitzky....................................................................157Sharia and the (Em)Brace of Difference: From Theology to Law to Identity Politics Anver M. Emon.........................................173Assessing the Christological Foundation of Kuyper's Doctrine of Common Grace Cambria Janae Kaltwasser...................................200From Talking About to Speaking With: The Reformed Churches in The Netherlands and Islam Dirk van Keulen.................................221Common Grace: A Distinctive Resource for "A Common Word" Emily Dumler-Winckler..........................................................244Simul Humanitas et Peccator: The Talmud's Contribution to a Dutch Reformed Notion of the Imago Dei Cory Willson.........................262How Many Herman Bavincks? De Gemeene Genade and the "Two Bavincks" Hypothesis James Eglinton............................................279Common Grace and Pagan Virtue: Is Kuyperian Tolerance Possible? Andrew M. Harmon........................................................302Advancing a Neo-Calvinist Pneumatology of Religions: The Role of Recent Yongian Contributions Robert Covolo.............................315

Chapter One

Jan Veenhof

For me, it is a great honor and joy to be in the same place where Bavinck delivered his Stone Lectures in 1908. At this conference we will learn more about the life and work of Herman Bavinck, who wholeheartedly supported Abraham Kuyper's attempt to align historic Reformed theology with the mind and culture of his time. However, as regards his personality and style of writing, Bavinck differed considerably from the resolute and imperialistic Kuyper. Bavinck was known for his modesty and his readiness to acknowledge elements of truth in the thoughts of others. A broad and thorough knowledge of history was linked to a great openness for topical matters and new developments. His magnum opus, which bears witness to his enormous erudition, is the best Dogmatics to have been published in the Netherlands in the last 120 years. Ever since I began to study theology Bavinck has fascinated me, and therefore I take great pleasure in delivering a lecture on the topic of "Revelation and Grace in Herman Bavinck."

In Bavinck's view, the idea and reality of revelation have the highest priority. Religion in the true sense of the word is preconditioned by the existence, the revelation, and the knowability of God. All knowledge of God has its origin in the revelatory action of God. Though revelation entails communication, it has to be borne in mind that God does not primarily communicate a series of supernatural truths, but rather there is essentially revelation of himself, self-revelation. In and through his revelation God comes to humankind and leads humankind into relation with him. Thus, the aim of communication is community. This revelatory action is motivated by love, and this love finds its deepest origin in God's own Being. The triune Godhead is communion, love itself. To quote Jan Luycken, a Dutch poet from the seventeenth century, "God is an eternal giving." And the act of God giving himself continues in what happens in time: in the creation of the universe, in the history of nature and world, and in the history of salvation, which has been enabled by the incarnation. Bavinck therefore sees a connection between generation, creation, incarnation, and revelation.

In this context it is important to point to the fact that the revelation in time and history originates from creation. In the work of creation through Word and Spirit, says Bavinck, the outline of all subsequent revelations is drawn. Creation is not just a past event but a continuous process. God remains Creator up to the present day. Any reflection on the notion of providence in dogmatic theology has to take revelation into account. Whatever God has done and is still doing in nature and history, in the life of humankind and in the life of individuals, is revelation, specifically self-revelation. It is all handcrafted by the Maker and shows aspects of this Maker.

This revelation can be designated as general revelation because it comprises everything, including culture and science, law-giving and the function of individual conscience, and it is revealed to all human beings. It is remarkable that, according to Bavinck, even the non-Christian religions find their origin in this general revelation, which has to be distinguished from the special revelation.

By distinguishing between general and special revelation, Bavinck follows a longstanding theological tradition. However, he has serious reservations about some concrete versions of this tradition. Later post-Reformation theology was inclined to understand this revelation in a rational way. According to this type of theology, revelation includes veritates, truths, which can be comprehended by reason, and it often speaks about a natural revelation, which is to be completed by a supernatural one. The natural revelation is some sort of Unterbau, or substructure, whereas the supernatural one is the Überbau, or superstructure which must be added to the Unterbau. The classic Roman Catholic theological tradition also distinguishes between natural and supernatural revelation.

Although Bavinck is not always consistent with his own qualifications, it is clear he does not like the duality of natural-supernatural. He prefers the distinction general-special. One reason for this preference concerns his view on the relation between nature and grace, which we will bring up in the following. Another important reason is that, according to Bavinck, revelation, including general revelation, never has the character of things, facts, which have been given and now, in their givenness, are subject to our rational analysis. On the contrary, revelation is always a continuous act of God, through which God searches for humankind. The given revelation can never be isolated from the revealing God, who gives himself.

General revelation is of great significance, but it is not sufficient. Its insufficiency is mainly caused by the sinful state of humankind, which makes it impossible for them to truly understand general revelation as revelation. Special revelation is therefore needed, which basically is a revelation of salvation. This revelation is characterized by verbal communication, much more so than is general revelation. It reveals the plan and the way of redemption and is also instrumental in renewing humanity and the world. This special revelation is realized in the history of salvation. It is special revelation because it is addressed to specific persons and specific communities, the people of Israel and the Christian church. It is concentrated in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This revelation is documented in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments.

It is not Bavinck's intention to postulate two completely separate revelations. It is interesting to see that from different angles he speaks about the mutual connections and the cooperation of both in the course of history. The duality should not be interpreted as a dualism since it is based on a unity that is constituted by the gracious will of God to save the world. This comprehensive view on revelation is beautifully expressed in the beginning of Bavinck's Stone Lectures:

Revelation, while having its center in the Person of Christ, in its periphery extends to the uttermost ends of creation. It does not stand isolated in nature and history, does not resemble an island in the ocean, nor a drop of oil upon water. With the whole of nature, with the whole of history, with the whole of humanity, with the family and society, with science and art it is intimately connected. The world itself rests on revelation; revelation is the presupposition, the foundation, the secret of all that exists in all its forms. The deeper science pushes its investigations, the more clearly will it discover that revelation underlies all created being. In every moment of time beats the pulse of eternity; every point in space is filled with the omnipresence of God; the finite is supported by the infinite, all becoming is rooted in being. Together with all created things, that special revelation which comes to us in the Person of Christ is built on these presuppositions. The foundations of creation and redemption are the same. The Logos who became flesh is the same by whom all things were made. The first-born from the dead is also the first-born of every creature. The Son, whom the Father made heir of all things, is the same by whom he also made the worlds. Notwithstanding the separation wrought by sin, there is a progressive approach of God to his creatures. The transcendence does not cease to exist, but becomes an ever deeper immanence. But as a disclosure of the greatness of God's heart, special revelation far surpasses general revelation, which makes known to us the power of his mind. General revelation leads to special, special revelation points back to general. The one calls for the other, and without it remains imperfect and unintelligible. Together they proclaim the manifold wisdom which God has displayed in creation and redemption.

According to Bavinck, both types of revelation should be considered as acts of grace. But just as he distinguishes between general and special revelation, Bavinck also draws a distinction between general and special grace. The notion of a common or general grace has become well known thanks to Abraham Kuyper's voluminous monograph. Kuyper presented a very profound historical, theological, and cultural elaboration of this topic by referring to several statements of Calvin. Bavinck had already discussed this motif in his rectoral address in Kampen before Kuyper's magnum opus was completed. Although Kuyper may have inspired Bavinck to deal with this subject, Bavinck developed his own original thoughts on this topic, which were much briefer than Kuyper's but fundamentally in the same vein. Several times Bavinck speaks about common grace in his other publications. While analyzing those passages, I came to the surprising conclusion that the notions of common grace and general revelation basically function as correlata, just like special grace and special revelation.

Grace, both common and special, is the origin and content of revelation, general and special revelation respectively. The dual character that Bavinck attributes to revelation also characterizes grace. The formulations used by Bavinck to designate general revelation re-occur in his description of common grace. Common grace is important because it includes the blessings of providence, the restraining of evil and sin, the impulses to justice in society, cultural and scientific attainments etc., but is not sufficient. Only special grace can break through the power of evil and sin and bestows us with God's love in forgiveness and renewal.

After this brief description of Bavinck's view on revelation and grace in their double forms, the question arises how these concepts are related to an aspect of Bavinck's thinking that may be designated the focal theme of his theology, viz. the relationship between grace and nature. In the confrontation with Rome Bavinck develops his fundamental thesis that grace does not devalue or oppress nature but restores it. This fundamental thesis he elucidates and elaborates in various ways. It is clear that Bavinck explains and updates an important motif of the Reformation of the sixteenth century. According to Bavinck, the Reformation was not just a reformation of the church, but a new conception of Christianity itself. By harking back to the New Testament, the Reformers, especially Calvin, rehabilitated the first article of Christian faith. The world is just as divine as the church. The world is corrupted by sin, but through grace it is also being saved from sin.

Bavinck opposes the introvert attitude, the suspicion of culture that he observes in circles of his own separated church and in other Christian communities. The grace of Christ is not restricted to the inner life of Christians, but purifies and renews all human life, including the domains of culture, scholarship, education, social structures, and politics. In all these areas Christians are to fulfill a God-given task. Surely, grace is soteriological but the object of the soteria is the whole world. The kingdom of heaven is a treasure, but also a leaven. It is with profound conviction and impressive eloquence that Bavinck pleads for what he describes as the catholicity of Christianity.

It is beyond any doubt that Bavinck, whilst elaborating and formulating this central theme of his theology, primarily focuses on special grace. However, the work of this grace with its universal and catholic perspective presupposes common grace. The world can only be saved and sanctified because it has been sustained by common grace throughout its existence. This illustrates and confirms the interrelationship between special and common grace. Common grace somehow creates the possibility for special grace to work. The same interrelation applies to revelation in its two forms.

So it is justified to state — and here we are using the formulations of Bavinck himself — that what is common is a preparation for that which is special and that, conversely, the special relies on the general. At the same time it must be noted that there would be no common grace at all if special grace had not entered the world and humankind. The reality of the one is unthinkable without the reality of the other.

It is clear that in this view the providence of God cannot be a neutral action. The providential action of God, which is all-comprehensive, "common" par excellence, has an intention, a function, which is subservient to the intention and function of special grace. Common and special grace are inseparably linked, not only in their coexistence and cooperation but also in their intention. The goal of both forms is the full realization of the Kingdom of God.

In the preceding we paid much attention to Bavinck's distinction between common and special because this differentiation plays such an important role in his concept of revelation and grace. It is necessary to consider the background and motivation of Bavinck in connection with this distinction. Bavinck was a deeply religious and pious person yet at the same time a very modern man and scholar. The serious cultural problems of his time lived not only in his head but also in his heart. A crucial issue that marked the philosophical and theological struggles of that time concerned the contrast between supranaturalism and naturalism. In his expositions about revelation and grace Bavinck sought to define his own position in relation to both patterns of thought. It is remarkable that his arguments are not only of an intellectual nature but also reflect an authentic religious concern.

As we have seen, Bavinck accentuates the value and dignity of nature and world as God-given creation, and he thus reacts against the supranaturalism in Roman Catholic theology and in post-Reformation theology and spirituality, especially the typically pietistic branches. The world is not lower than grace and essentially good in spite of corruption by sin. God respects and honors this world, does not annihilate and replace it by another world, but will renew it. Redemption is re-creation. Therefore, the deeds for and in this world may be seen as a religious task. It is important to note that, according to Bavinck, this positive estimation of nature as creation is in every respect fundamental to an appropriate understanding of the Christian doctrine, which has to avoid the failures of the supranaturalistic approach of the old orthodoxy. I mention here as an example of this Bavinck's treatment of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. He proposed replacing the older mechanical view with an organic concept that integrates the historical, cultural, and psychological factors.

On the other hand, Bavinck opposes naturalistic tendencies in modern philosophy, theology, culture, and science. Bavinck seeks out the representatives of modern thought and tries to convince them that nature and culture, religion and science, history and philosophy are based on divine revelation. The first opposition is predominant in his rectoral addresses in Kampen about catholicity and common grace, whereas in his Stone Lectures and some other publications from his period in Amsterdam he more strongly emphasizes the second opposition. Bavinck's confrontation with modern theology must be mentioned in this regard. He engaged in an intensive critical dialogue with liberal theology throughout his life. It is interesting that this dialogue is the topic of his last specifically theological publication, viz. his rectoral address in Amsterdam in the year 1911. In this address he pointed to the fact that many liberal theologians put the Christian religion on a par with all the world's religions. They rejected the unique and absolute character of the Christian faith and considered revelation as a universal religious phenomenon. In their thinking there was no place for supernatural revelation that had specific content. It is remarkable that Bavinck in this confrontation does not offer an apology for "the supranatural" as a complement of the natural. The term "supernatural" was too problematic for him to do so, and he used a strictly religious argument instead. He states that it is not possible to base faith in the love of God on the observation of nature. Faith can only be founded on revelation with a specific content, a revelation that comes to man objectively in the person of Christ and subjectively in the testimony of the Spirit. Bavinck is here fully in line with his statement in the Stone Lectures, which I quoted before: general revelation conveys to us the wisdom and power of God; special revelation brings us in contact with his heart and love.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from The Kuyper Center Review Copyright © 2011 by Princeton Theological Seminary. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.