|
Herman Bavinck’s Doctrine of
God
Compiled by Charles R. Biggs
Introduction
What does Bavinck mean by “mystery”? What are the implications of the element
of “mystery” in theology?
Bavinck begins his book by saying “Mystery is the
vital element of Dogmatics.” He means not mystery in the
abstract-supernatural truth in the Romish sense;
but the study of God is immediately for man a mystery. This means we must approach the study of
God with “fear and trembling”.
Had God not chosen to reveal himself, we would not be able to deny
his existence, but we would never know him personally. Although redemption, forgiveness of sins
and justification are benefits of Christ’s work on our behalf, the
goal of our salvation is to know God.
However, if God had not revealed himself to man, we would never be
able to know him because he is God.
The implications of this
are that we should approach the study of God with humility because although
man prides himself in knowing all other things, the study of God is quite
different. He not only has taken the
initiative to reveal himself, but we must paradoxically allow our knowledge
of him to cause us to be humble rather than “experts” as we are
in any other field of man’s knowledge and education. Our knowledge of God is different and it
actually changes who we are. The
study of dogmatics are God’s revelation
about himself to man, but we do more than merely study him; we try to grasp
and understand what he has revealed to us about himself. We cannot be “original” in
our thinking of God. We should seek
only to reflect what he has revealed to us about himself.
Even our language is not
sufficient to speak about God because we could not find words in the human
language to describe him. However,
out of his mercy and grace he has chosen to reveal himself to us using
human language. Otherwise we would
not be able to understand or communicate with him at all. He would indeed be “wholly
other” had he not taken the initiative to show himself to man.
1. A short
outline of the Old Testament teaching on God and summary of Bavinck’s outline on God.
I.
God creates
the universe and sustains it by his powerful word.
II.
He reveals
himself to Adam and Even the creatures he has personally made.
III.
He sends
them out of the garden, away from his presence because of their sins
however he does not destroy them finally as their sins deserve. Instead, by his grace he promises a
redeemer and clothes them with his own righteousness.
IV.
God reveals
himself to a people and continues to save his people out of the different
parts of the earth. Eventually his
remnant will be saved by him as he decides to reveal his word and law to
his own. He comes down and to
fellowship with his people in different times, circumstances, and in
different ways of revealing himself.
V.
God is bringing
his people, separated to himself, to an end: that is to know him and to
love him. Although he has promised a
Messiah, the Messiah is yet to come.
It is through the people that he has tabernacled
among which he intends to bring the Messiah.
VI.
He calls
prophets, priests and kings to witness to himself in the OT. The priests deliver his word to the
Kings. The Kings lead the people and
make decisions based on the prophets’ words, and the priests offer up
worship on behalf of the people. The
offer the sacrifice God requires until the Messiah will offer up the
sacrifice once and for all on behalf of his people. God shows his people in many ways the
fact that these sacrifices are never once for all in character, but they
are only temporary.
VII.
In God’s
sovereignty over the nations and providence and sustaining of his universe,
he uses good and evil events, people and things to brings his purposes and
decrees to fulfillment. God’s
plan will not be thwarted, neither his judgment turned around. From the foundation of the earth, God
elected a people and through real time and history he is accomplishing this
election, through his own involvement and eventual incarnation. Ultimately, the offense which God
experienced in the garden with the sin of Adam was atoned for, and his
wrath propitiated, through not only him taking the initiative in his
revelation and salvation, but him coming to be just and the justifier of he
who believes in his Son.
Bavinck’s
Outline of God in the Old Testament
I.
God is a
personal being, self-existent, having the source of life in himself, self-conscious, and self-willing, not shut in
by nature but exalted above nature, Creator of heaven and earth.
II.
This God can
appear and reveal himself in definite places, at definite times, to definite
persons: to the patriarchs, to Moses, to the prophets, in the garden, at
the building of the tower of Babel, at Bethel, on Sinai, in Canaan, at Jerusalem, on Zion, etc.
III.
This
revelation throughout the entire OT, not only in the period before but also
in the period of the prophets, is preparatory in character. It is given in signs, dreams and visions,
by means of the casting of lot, Urim and Thummin, angels and the Mal’akh
Yhwh; it usually occurs at definite moments,
ceases and becomes a matter of the past.
It is more or less external, stays outside of and above man, is a
revelation to rather than in man, and indicates by means of this
peculiarity that it serves to usher in and prepare for the highest and
lasting revelation to God in the person of Christ and his continuous abode
in the church.
IV.
Accordingly,
the OT does not give a complete revelation of God’s being. It does indeed furnish a true and
reliable knowledge of God, but not a knowledge
adequate to his being. The stone at
Bethel, the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire in the desert, the
thunder on Sinai, the cloud in the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant,
etc., are so many signs and pledges of his presence, but they do not
comprise him. Moses, unto whom the
Lord spake as a man speaketh unto his friend, did not see God until he
passed by, Ex. 33:23. Man cannot see
God and live, Ex. 33:20; Lev. 16:2.
He is without form, Deut. 4:12, 15.
He is unpicturable, Ex. 20:4. He dwells in darkness. Clouds and darkness are the indication of
his presence, Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:22; I Kings
8:12; II Chron. 6:1.
V.
The same God
who in his revelation limits himself, as it were, to definite places,
occasions, and persons, is, nevertheless, exalted infinitely high above the
whole realm of nature and every creature.
Even in those parts of Scripture which stress his temporal and local
manifestation the idea of his exaltation and omnipotence is not wanting:
the Lord who walks in the garden is the Creator of heaven and earth. The God who appears to Jacob determines
the future. Although the God of
Israel dwells in the midst of His people in the house which Solomon builds
for him, yet even the heaven of heavens cannot contain him, I Kings 8:27. He reveals himself in nature, and lives
along with his people, as it were; but at the same time he is
Incomprehensible, Job 26:14; 36:26; 37:5, the Incomparable, Is. 40:18, 25;
46:5; the One who is exalted infinitely above time and space and every
creature, Is. 40:12ff.; 41:4; 44:6; 48:12, the one and only true God, Ex.
20:3, 11; Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:19; I Sam. 2:2; Is. 44:8. Although he, indeed, reveals himself in
his names, no name expresses him adequately. He is without name. His name is wonderful, Gen. 32:29; Judges
13:18; Prov. 30:4. The profundities of Deity are far too
deep to be sounded by us, Job 11:7, 8; Ecc. Sir.
43:34, 35.
VI.
To
summarize: throughout the entire OT these two elements are found side by
side: (a) “God dwelleth with him that is of
a contrite and humble spirit,” and (b) he is at the same time “the
High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,
whose name is Holy,” Is. 57:15.
The Knowledge of God
1. What is
the meaning of “the finite cannot grasp the infinite”?
In Latin: finitum non capax
infinitum. The finite is limited to the realm of the
‘phenomenal’ realm of the senses and our knowledge comes only
by what we can hear, see, smell, taste, and touch. We are limited to this realm and cannot
ascend into the heights of the infinite (‘noumenal’)
realm in which God exists because we are not made for that realm. Even speaking a priori, we have innate ideas which we view the world, and if
all things were equal and we were not in a state of “fallenness” then we might be able to apprehend
the existence of God. As it is, we
are fallen and cannot apprehend the existence of God, although we cannot
deny his existence (Rom.1), but even as God “condescends” as
Calvin says to us, by revealing himself to us, our knowledge of his being
is still limited because we are creatures, he is the Creator. We can apprehend God when he reveals
himself to us in his creation, but we are never able to comprehend him.
Bavinck says: “Religion and the knowledge of God can have their
origin only in revelation…It is impossible for God fully to reveal
himself to and in his creatures, for the finite does not grasp the
infinite” (Mt. 11:27; cf. Deut. 29:29).
2. What
does Bavinck mean when he says that there is a knowledge of God which is “natural, universal
and necessary”?
He means what he terms “innate
ideas” or the ideas the man, as man seems to have from birth. Man does not consistently live as an
empiricist in this physical world.
He has innate ideas of “good,” “evil,”
“right,” and “wrong,” “love,” and
“beauty.” Man from birth
thinks of love, but cannot empirically verify it. As Bavinck
stated earlier, there is no place on earth where we could empirically
investigate the presence of man and not find some sort of religion. Man would rather have a false god, than
no god at all. He must presuppose
God in order to govern himself in realms of love, mercy, community and
morals, etc. This knowledge of God
is as Calvin put a sort of “sense of the divine” in our souls;
man cannot live in a mere physical world.
He also presupposes the world of soul and spirit. Bavinck says:
“The truths of mathematics and logic, the principles of ethics,
jurisprudence, and religion, are universally fixed and established.”
3. What
are “innate ideas”? (pp. 44-56). In what ways has this concept been
rejected by Christian theologians?
Is there a sense in which we can speak of an innate knowledge of
God? (pp. 57-59)
Innate ideas are a priori notions
which all men have which they use to interpret the world. It has been defined: “Our ability
to acquire knowledge presupposes antecedent knowledge. Argumentation and reasoning are based
upon self-evident and a priori principles. Experience merely furnishes
“notions,” contingent truths.
Universal and necessary truths can originate in the human mind
only.”
In Greek philosophy Plato tried to explain this concept by saying
that before the soul was join to the body in the “realm of
ideas” we were given these ideas and in this world these ideas come
back to us through “reminisces.” Aristotle said that certain general
principles were inherent in the constitution of reason, axioms upon which
all arguments are based, and which are acknowledged by all. The Stoics spoke of “common,
natural ideas” which every derives from
sensation due to the very nature of our thought-processes. Cicero said that there are innate seeds of the virtues,
faint notions of the most important things which nature planted in the
soul. He said: “By nature we
believe that the gods exist.”
In the Enlightenment, Rene’ Descartes spoke of knowledge
proceeding (not merely from the senses) from a principle of its own, from
innate ideas. Chief among these
innate ideas, Descartes said, was the idea of God. Later Leibnitz
and Malebranche agreed with this. Kant greatly modified this doctrine of
innate ideas. He spoke of an a priori and a posteriori knowledge.
This doctrine of innate ideas was rejected by the Socinians, who rejected natural religion, and
especially John Locke, Hobbes, and others.
They would say that sensation is the source of all human knowledge:
“There is nothing in the mind which was previously in the
senses.”
Christian theologians and the
doctrine of innate ideas: ”Christian theology as a whole held that there
were truths known by nature and not as the result of revelation, truths
obtained involuntarily and not by means of intentional study and
reflection; nevertheless, it has definitely rejected the doctrine of innate
ideas.”
Justin Martyr: speaks of the idea of God as “the
expression of man’s innate opinion regarding an object that can
scarcely be defined.”
Irenaeus: [In opposition to the Gnostics] he states that
the universe was created by God, reveals God and makes him known; but he
does not mention any innate knowledge.
Clement of Alexandria: affirms that the Father and Creator of all things
is known “by nature and apart from any
instruction.” He states that
this knowledge comes from the observance of God’s works.
Tertullian: emphasizes the nature knowledge concerning
God. “…from the very
beginning a consciousness of God is given to the soul…this is true of
every tribe and people. By nature
the soul is Christian.”
Augustine: he says that reason perceives and knows
universal, necessary, and immutable truths.
As we see material objects by the light of the sun (Plato nods), so
we perceive the intelligible truths in the light of God.
Scholasticism: unanimous in it rejection of the doctrine of
innate ideas. Perception by the
senses was considered the beginning of all knowledge.
Martin Luther: Apart from the Holy Spirit reason is simply without
the knowledge of God. With respect
to divine matters, man is completely in the dark. He acknowledged that God revealed himself
in his works, but he teaches that man is not longer able to know God by
means of this revelation. Flacius and Chemnitz also agreed with this.
Melanchthon: taught a knowledge of
God innate as well as acquired. All
the vestiges of God that are observed in his works would be insufficient if
the mind did not also have a certain idea or preconception of God.
John Calvin: distinguished between common and special grace, and by means of the former he explained all the
good still left in sinful man. He
asserted that a divinitatis sensum, or “a sense of a Deity” was implanted
in the human soul by “natural instinct.” Institutes
I.3.1: “God has implanted in everyone a sense of a Deity, the
memory of which he renews frequently and insensibly.” However these
“seeds” or “senses” never are full grown because of
man being by in a fallen state.
Reasons why Christian theologians have rejected innate ideas: There was a fear of rationalism and
mysticism. If man were born fully
endowed (in his soul) with a clear and definite knowledge either of all
ideas (Plato), or of God (Descartes), he would thereby become independent
of the world; he would be able to
obtain pure and perfect knowledge from the storehouse in his own soul.
“Christian theology maintained the doctrine of Holy Scripture:
that, whereas we cannot know God’s being as such, all our knowledge
of God is obtained indirectly and bears an analogical character…no
one arrives at the knowledge of ‘first principles’ or at the
idea of God apart from the universe…In a word, there is not one
ethical truth which is recognized everywhere, always, and by all. In the real sense of the word natural theology never existed, no
more than natural rights and natural morals.”
On the other hand, Scripture points out the fact that for man
objective revelation in nature and in grace is indispensable; but at the
same time it recognizes the fact that man is God’s image and
offspring, that in his “mind” he possesses the ability to see
God in his works, and that he has the work of the law written in his heart,
Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:28; Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:15.
Everything depends on a right view of this original character of the
“common ideas.” Innate
knowledge of God” does not mean that God has in such a manner
directly endowed man with knowledge that he can dispense with revelation. It does not indicate that man is able to
obtain a conscious, clear, and true knowledge of God from the storehouse of
his own soul. But it indicates that
man possesses both the “capacity, aptitude,
power, ability” and the “inclination, tendency,
disposition” to obtain some definite, certain, and indubitable
knowledge of God.
The Doctrine of Innate Ideas stated
succinctly: “The knowledge
of God is said to be innate inasfar as by means
of the principles with which we are endowed from our very birth we can
easily perceive that God exists.”
There is a revelation of God in all his works, not only in nature as
such, but especially also in man.
4. State
the difference between innate knowledge and acquired knowledge (pp. 61-68)
While revelation precedes both innate and acquired knowledge, there
is a distinction between two kinds of knowledge. Innate has more to do with God’s
revelation within a man. As Romans 1
states: Man by nature knows God because he is his
“image-bearer” therefore he is conscious not only of himself
but of One that has created him. In
his fallen state, he suppresses this knowledge, lies to himself and places
another “god” in the place of the true God, but he is without
excuse.
On the other hand, the acquired knowledge in comparison to innate
knowledge searches God’s revelation externally, as it were, to seek
to find answers about God. In
Christian history we have called these the “proofs” for
God’s existence, perhaps it would be better
to call them “evidences for the reasonableness of
Christianity.” Innate
knowledge and acquired knowledge both depend on God’s revelation and
God’s existence to make sense of anything, whether it is to
internally ask the question “Who am I?” “What is my
purpose?” to the external investigation of all the creation (Ps. 19)
that depends as much on the light of the sun for our eyes to see as we
depend on God’s revelation to understand the creation and order,
etc. God has placed his indelible
mark on both our being “image-bearers” and as those who
“tend to his garden.”
There is only one world. The
world which God has made. As created
beings in God’s image we can have correct knowledge of the world but
not through mere “natural theology,” or through reason
alone. Everything that exists is
from the hand of God and must be revealed to us by God because all things
require interpretation, and God has interpreted all things to us in
Scripture. A tree is not a mere
tree, but created for God’s glory in God’s garden as it
were. The believer and the non-believer
can both look at that tree and understand it metaphysically, but
epistemologically they have nothing in common in its examination. We may only interpret that which God has
made by using the interpretation he has revealed, whether it be a tree or a mind.
Nature and grace do not stand opposed one to the other. The “self-attesting” Christ and
God the Father has revealed himself as much in our daily lives as we walk
about in his “theater” as he has revealed himself to us in his
special grace in salvation. Both
realms are created by God and should not be divided as if we interpret them
in different ways. As Calvin has
said we interpret everything through the “lens” of the
Scripture.
Scripture presupposes our knowledge of God, in fact the so-called
“proofs” for the existence of God: cosmological, teleological,
moral, ontological, all have affirmations in Scripture insofar as Scripture
takes for granted the fact (as it asserts this fact) that common to all man
is the knowledge of God. There is
not one created thing (and there is nothing but created “things”)
that do not show forth God’s glory, even at the atomic level,
God’s glory and divine attributes can be seen…so that men are
without excuse in believing that God exists.
Throughout history men have tried to “prove” the
existence of God. From the heathen
philosopher such as Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, Cicero, etc. have tried to reason from the creation to
the “God who is There.”
It is a testimony to the fact that man is made in the image of God
and by nature a “religious being” however these “proofs”
have never been sufficient because of the fall they have not rightly
interpreted the things which they gather as data for God’s existence.
By the time of Anselm’s Prologium innate knowledge and acquired knowledge began to separated. In
fact, man Christians thought that man could reason on a neutral ground
using reason alone to prove God existence.
During the Reformation however, Calvin taught that man no longer has
the eye to see God and that the seed of religion which every man has by birth,
is choked and does not bear fruit.
Eventually, those who did not heed Calvin’s warning about the
seeds being choked and correct interpretation being impossible without
revelation ended up with rationalism in Protestantism. Natural theology became rational
theology.
5. Summarize
the proofs for the existence of God (pp. 68-80)
Bavinck beings with a summary of “proofs” for the existence of
God:
(1)
Two are
based upon the nature of the universe: (a) Cosmological, (b) Teleological;
deduce God’s existence from order and purpose respectively.
(2)
Two are
based upon the nature of the human soul; based upon the rational nature of
man (a) Ontological, (b) Moral;
(3)
Two are
based upon history: (a) The argument from universal consent, (b) Historico-Theological.
The Cosmological Proof
This is presented in different forms. Aristotle:
A “first self-moving power” from motion. John
of Damascus: The unchangeable, from the changeable. Boethius-Anselm:
The absolutely perfect, from the relatively perfect. Thomas
Aquinas: A “first efficient cause” from the
“series of causes” which cannot be infinite.
In all these forms, the
Cosmological proof deduces a cause from an effect. The
argument assumes not only that the individual objects existing in the
universe are contingent, finite, relative, imperfect; but it also assumes
the same in regard to the entire universe; it assumes that an
“infinite chain of causes” is inconceivable; and that the law
of causality should also be applied to the universe as a whole. Even if we grant the impossibility of an
infinite number of regressions, we do not come to a personal God revealed
in Scripture, we merely come to an impersonal , first cause, absolute, but
it tells us nothing of this being (if indeed it is a being which we could
speak intelligibly concerning).
The Teleological Proof
The
teleological argument deduces and intelligent cause from the order and
beauty, the harmony and purpose evident in the universe as a whole and also
in individual creatures. Kant argued
that this leads us to “World-Architect” rather than
“World-Creator”.
Scripture speaks to us in many places about purpose and order in
creation. This points us to a
purposeful Creator, however we could not know this
Creator without revelation of himself, although we do know enough to be
without excuse in that which is ordered and purposeful.
The Ontological Argument
Presented in three forms: (1) From the general ideas and norms
present in the human mind, such as absolute truth, goodness, beauty, i.e.
God (Plato, Augustine, Boethius, Anselm). (2) The
real existence of the highest, absolute idea (i.e. of God) from the
necessary presence of that idea in thought; as otherwise it would not be
the highest idea, the absolute idea, inasmuch as an idea which has real
existence is greater and higher than one not having real existence (Anselm,
Prologium). (3) It proves God’s existence from
the innate character of the idea of God (Descartes). The value of the argument lies in this:
that it indicates the fact that man necessarily has an idea of God, and thinks
of him as actually existing, and hence: that it places man before the
choice of either trusting this necessary testimony or else despairing of
his own consciousness.
The Moral Argument
We all
have such things as conscience, responsibility, grief, reward and
punishment, virtue and happiness, fear of death and of judgment, the
triumph of goodness, etc. The power
of this argument is in the fact that the moral order within our conscious
does not necessarily point to the self-attesting God of Scripture, however
it gives evidence, that for some reason our thoughts and will are
determined by a moral nature within all men.
Argument from Universal Consent
Religion
is not a particular things which exists in one or
two individuals, but something universal spreading over all mankind. A religious inclination (or seed of
religion is in every man). We travel
all over the world and see man’s need to have religion and
worship. Although with revelation
men are blinded, the seed is choked as Calvin says, they are worshipful
creatures because they are made as worshipers of the True God and they
exchange the truth of the True God for a lie. Man because he is created in God’s
image has a natural inclination to worship and to practice a religion of
some kind.
The Historico-Theological
Proof
This points to man’s study of history.
All history whether religious, the arts, etc. have a goal, a telos, an end in view as
history progresses (by that very term we see inherent this argument: the
term “progress”, why not “digress”?). This argument is weak because although
man is progressing intellectually and thus culturally, what do we measure
this with? How do we know that he is
progressing correctly and in a true religious and ethical way. We may have
microwaves, but we also have mass-murderers. Is this progress? It seems as much as men try to deny it,
there is no doubt that there is not a hand of Providence guiding our world to its appointed destiny.
Although all these are weak as
“proofs” for God’s existence, they are strong as
testimonies to God’s existence.
The entire universe is a
manifestation of God: the whole world is a mirror of his virtues. There is not an atom in the universe in
which his everlasting power and divinity are not clearly seen.
As testimonies these arguments are wonderful. As God has revealed himself in natural
and supernatural revelation, nature and grace, he has caused us to see from
the effect that he is the Great Cause for which all things live and move
and have their being. He has placed
his imprint upon our hearts, minds and souls and therefore we can have the
“idea” of God, although incomplete, and be without excuse as to
the way our mind is ordered and thinks through problems. God has made all things by his Divine
Decrees through Creation and Providence, he has made all things beautiful, true, and
orderly and he upholds these things continually so they do not “fall
out of existence” as it were.
All things are created things and depend on God to sustain them, even
in the seminal form of an idea, we can think only because God has given us
this ability to think rationally. We
travel the world and see religion, but that only shows us that man by
fallen nature is an idol factory, they see all things around them and have
no choice but to worship, however they exchange the Creator for the created
things. We should note the
importance of these testimonies but also the fact that by using the same
fallible human reason to establish them, we can also find
“holes” in the logic, and deconstruct them as well as construct
them as thoughts and arguments. The
only thing that makes sense out of this universe, and that which we
presuppose and depend upon to make predications, comes from God himself-
-his nature and as Creator. We
should look to Him as our only source of true knowledge, because knowledge
itself would be impossible without his existence.
The Name of God
1. What is
the connection between God and his names? (pp. 84-90)
The connection between God and his name is that his name is his own
revelation to man. Names can be
given to men to distinguish them from others and to describe personalities,
etc. But with God, he reveals his
own name, his attributes, divine power, and salvation all being revealed
with his great and holy name. In the
OT God first reveals his name and his faithfulness to Israel, in the NT Jesus, the Son of God comes down from
heaven and becomes flesh that all might know God and his name. The richest revelation of the name of God
will be in the New Jerusalem.
God’s name is not his being, as God exists in himself, but his
revelation and relation to the creature.
His name reveals who God is. God’s names are all derived
from His revelation; there is not one name which is expressive of the being
of God “in itself.” The “revealed name” is the
basis of all the “names by which we address God.”
2. What is
anthropomorphic language and can it be legitimately used in relation to
God? If so, why? (pp. 90-98)
God uses human language to reveal himself to us. Calvin says in his Institutes that God lisps to us as a Father speaking
“baby talk” to a child. Bavinck writes: “It follows that Scripture does
not merely contain a few anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture
is anthropomorphic. From beginning to
end Scripture testifies a condescending approach of God to man…If God
were to speak to us in divine language, no one would be able to understand
him; but ever since creation, he, in condescending grace, speaks to us and
manifests himself to us in condescending fashion.”
Scripture uses many anthropomorphism to
reveal God to his people: human organs, sensations, affections, are applied
to God. God has s soul (Lev. 26:11;
Mt. 12:28); and a Spirit (Gen. 1:2). In Christ God assumed a real body (John
1:14; Col. 2:17); mention is made of his countenance (Ex. 33:20; Is. 63:9);
his eyes, eyelids, the apple of his eye, his ears, nose, mouth, lips, hand,
right hand, finger, etc. Human
emotion is described of God: Joy (Is. 62:5); rejoicing (Is. 65:19); love in
all its variations, such as compassion, mercy, grace, longsuffering,
etc. Bavinck
writes: “Anthropomorphism seems to be unlimited. In order to give us an idea of the
majesty and exalted character of God names are derived from every kind of
creature, living and lifeless, organic and inorganic.”
Language can be used legitimately in relation to God because though
the distance between creature and Creator is infinite, it is still
God’s handiwork. There is a
close relation between God and the universe. The only reason we have a right to use
anthropomorphic language concerning God is because while he is infinitely
incomprehensible in his being and “too far” for man to every
travel to be next to him (although in Him we live, move and have our being…he
is not very far from us; I am distinguishing between the immanence and
transcendence of God and the initiative of man to try to reach the Holy
One), he has, as it were “traveled to us” to reveal himself
with and in his creatures, and because he has been pleased to reveal his
name in and through creatures. It is
impossible to speak of God at all without using anthropomorphisms.
Bavinck writes: “We do not see God as he is in himself. We behold him in his works. We name him according to the manner in
which he has revealed himself in his works.
To see God face to face is for us impossible, at least here on
earth. If nevertheless, God wills
that we should know him, he must needs descend to
the level of the creature. He must needs accommodate himself to our limited, finite,
human consciousness. He must speak
to us in human language.”
Although this language about God is limited and finite, it is real
and true. “To say that our
knowledge of God is inadequate, finite, limited, and nevertheless, to
maintain that it is real, pure, sufficient is not at all illogical or
contradictory.”
Theology is not merely symbolical,
but rather ectypal or analogical:
1.
All our
knowledge is out of and through God, and rests upon his revelation, i.e.,
on objective reason.
2.
In order to
impart knowledge concerning himself to his creatures, God must needs accommodate himself to their consciousness.
3.
The
possibility of this “condescension” cannot be denied as it is
implied in the very fact of creation and in the existence of any finite
being.
4.
For this
very reason, our knowledge concerning God must remain analogical in
character, having for its object not God himself according to his
unknowable essence, but God in his revelation to us, in the “the
relations which his nature sustains to us,” in his disposition toward
his creatures, that this knowledge is, accordingly, merely a vague image or
likeness of that perfect knowledge which God has of himself.
5.
Notwithstanding,
all that has been said, our knowledge concerning God is real, pure, and
dependable, because God’s self-consciousness is its archetype, and
his self-revelation in the cosmos its foundation.
3. Apart
from the covenant name Yahweh, state and explain the most significant names
of God in Scripture. (pp. 98-102)
Names of God (Transcendence of
God): These are not
“proper names” but are the usual appellatives and designations
of the Deity. They are Semitic, and
indicate God’s transcendence above all creatures. The Semites prefer to call God
“Lord,” “King.”
They feel deeply dependent upon him, and as his servants they humbly
and reverently bow before him. They
do not use these names to give expression to philosophic theories
concerning the being of God, but emphasize God’s relation to his
creatures, especially to man:
El- The Mighty One (used also “generically” of other
gods).
El-Shaddai-
The Powerful One.
Elohim- The
Strong and Mighty one, or as the
object of fear; full of life and power (the plurality of the name
indicates). The name ‘Elohim’ describes the Divine Being in his original
relationship and in his continuous causal relationship to the universe.
Elyon- Designates God as the High and Exalted
One. These names signify God’s
transcendence.
Names of God (Immanence of God):
Shaddai, or El Shaddai- The All-Sufficient One. God
reveals himself to Abraham when he makes him a father of a multitude of
nations and institutes the sacrament of circumcision as a seal of the
covenant (Gen. 17:1). It occurs
again and again in the time of the patriarchs. The NT equivalent is pantokrator
(2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 4:8). This name makes
God known to us as the One who possesses all power, and is able to overcome
all opposition and to make everything subservient to his will.
Bavinck writes: “The name Elohim designates
God as Creator and Preserver of all things; El-Shaddai
represents him as the Mighty One, who makes nature subservient to grace;
Jehovah describes him as the One whose faithfulness endure forever; Jehovah
Sabaoth characterized him as the King in the fulness of his glory, surrounded by organized host of
angels, governing the entire universe as the Omnipotent One, and in his
temple receiving the honor and adoration of all his creatures.”
4. What
significance should be seen in the fact that only in the NT does
“Father” become “the common name by which God is
addressed”? (pg. 109)
Bavinck writes: “The rendering “Lord” (kurios) for Jehovah is insufficient. It is supplemented by the name
“Father.” This name is
the highest revelation of God, God is not only the Creator, the Almighty
One, the Faithful One, the King and Lord; he is also the Father of his
people. A kingdom of the Father who
is in heaven takes the place of Israel’s theocratic kingdom. The subjects are also children; the
citizens are members of the family…We find here the perfect Kingship; for, here is a
King who is at the same time Father, who does not force his subjects to obey him, but creates and protects
them.”
The name “Father” in the NT represents the fullness of
God’s covenant revelation. In
the OT with Israel God referred to himself as the “Father of
Israel” but most of the time this was understood in covenantal terms
because he had called Abraham and made a covenant with Abraham and his
descendant. His descendants were
called the children of “their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.” What was implicit in
this covenantal relationship which God made with man was in the Person of
Jesus Christ, his becoming “like one of us” in the image of
God, but also as God himself. He
restored the relationship that had been broken between man and God, and as
the second Adam God justified us because of the work of Christ on our
behalf. Therefore, he adopted us as sons, we call God “Father” in the true sense
of the term. But it must be kept in
mind that there exists a covenant relationship within the family of God
that has made this possible, we cannot speak of God as our Father in the
same way that Christ can. But we can
now pray “Our Father, which art in heaven…” We have the promise of redemption,
knowing that the Spirit is within us we call on God as “Abba,
Father.”
The Triune God and our Knowledge of Him
1. What
are the main points in Bavinck’s
discussions of the deity of each person in the Godhead? (pp. 266-274)
Each person in the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are intimately
one in essence, but distinct as persons and in the offices they
perform. As God, the Trinity, who is
the Creator, sustainer and preserver of his creation and all life, the
Godhead is One, but revealed in three persons. Economically, so to speak, the three
persons have different “works” which they do for His glory and
for man’s good. The Father is
God and the Creator, the Initiator of Man’s salvation. He is the great rule of all creation but
not entirely separated. The Son has
come to reveal the Father (knowledge of the Father) and is he himself an
express reflection and revelation of the Father. The Son has willingly submitted himself
to take on humanity in order to reveal the Father to man and reconcile man
to the Father. The Son,
economically, although equal in essence, has submitted to the
Father’s will and can indeed say that He and the Father are one, and
at the same time that the Father is greater than He. The Son speaks of fulfilling the work of
God (John 17) and that He will now return to the glory he had since the
foundation of the earth.
Although some teachers in the Church, particularly Arius in the 4th century, taught that the
Son was not equal in divinity with the Father, the Bible clearly teaches
that he is. He is eternally begotten
and the only thing truly made, and born of a woman, was his humanity. A unique and sui generis role that only the Son has
taken upon himself to fulfill. He
was God and Man, one person with two natures. He was from the beginning and has always
been “with” God and “was” God (John 1). The Spirit is equally divine in
nature. He is the Father’s
breath, sustaining life that is given to man. It is through the Spirit of God that all
men, created beings, live and move and have their being and some particularly
whom the Father gave the Son to die on behalf of as His own people. The Spirit is distinct from the Father
and the Son, but not separated. He
is the divine life and as Christ described him in John 14-16, he is
“another comforter” or advocate that would come to live through
the Church as Christ was seated at the right hand of God in the
heavens. We must remember that all
three persons in the Trinity possess the same attributes, but for men and
their salvation, they have taken economically different functions to
fulfill the divine plan.
2. State
and assess Bavinck’s view of the Trinity in
the OT, and contrast this with the revelation of the NT. (pp. 255-266)
The revelation of the Trinity begins in the OT,
however there is not a full revelation of the Trinity until the NT. Christ before he returns to the Father,
tells his disciples to “Go into the world and preach the
gospel” and he reveals for the first time God’s true name in
his instructions to baptize in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. With the singularity of
“Name” we see the unity of the Godhead and with the three
distinct definite articles before Father, Son, and Spirit we can apprehend
the revelation of God’s plurality in the Godhead.
Some such as the Socinians, Arminians, Herder, Doederlein,
et al. thought that there was not revelation of
God the Trinity in the OT at all. As
Bavinck says, the OT gives a vague idea of
God’s Trinitarian existence: it is the first installment of
progressively revealed teaching. For
instance, there is a distinction at Creation among the Father who is
creating by his Word and by his Spirit.
There is God, Jehovah who reveals himself as the God of the covenant
and of the oath, of revelation and history.
Through his Word he makes this known, and delivers his people (Ps.
107). At this point we must not
conclude that the Angel of the LORD mentioned in the OT is necessarily the
Second Person of the Trinity as many of the Church Fathers have taught. Many of the Fathers have thought that the
Angel of Jehovah was a theophany of the Logos
(Justin Martyr, Theophilis, Irenaeus,
Tertullian). God’s Spirit is the principle of
all blessings and comfort, gifts and talents within the sphere of
revelation.
The NT contains the true development of the OT Trinitarian ideas, Bavinck says.
“This NT revelation, however, is much clearer: it does not
consist in abstract reasoning concerning the being of God, but God
manifests himself in the incarnation, in word and in deed. As in the OT, so also in the NT
God’s unity is emphasized. God
is revealed as Trinity in the NT at creation as well as in the OT. The Father is the Creator of the universe
and as such, he is called Father (Mt. 7:11; John 4:21; Acts 17:28; Heb. 12:9). The Son, who
bears this name because of his peculiar relation to God, is the Logos
through whom the Father created all things (John 1:3; 1 Cor.
8:6; Col. 1:15-17), and the Holy Spirit who together with the Father and
the Son adorns and finishes the work of creation (Mt. 1:18; Mark 1:2; Rom.
1:4). Bavinck
also writes: “In the NT, Jehovah is called “Father,”
richer in meaning than “Lord” (kurios). In the incarnate Son of God all the OT
prophecies and shadows of prophet and king, of priesthood and sacrifice, of
Servant of Jehovah and Son of David, of Angel of Jehovah and Wisdom, reach
their fulfillment. And the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the realization of the OT promise, Acts
2:16 ff.”
Salvation in the NT reveals that God is indeed triune. The entire NT is Trinitarian in
character. God: Father, Son and Holy
spirit is the source of all good things, blessing,
comfort, and salvation. At
Christ’s birth and baptism, the trinity is revealed. Christ declares unto us the Father, who
he describes as Spirit with Life in himself. The Holy Spirit leads Christ and
qualifies him for his task, and is called another Comforter (Paraclete).
Before Christ departs from this earth he sums up his Trinitarian
teaching in the phrase: “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit.”
3. Very
briefly, note the salient points in the history of the doctrine of the
Trinity. (pp. 274-330)
Bavinck writes: “From the very beginning [of the history of the
Church] it is clear that the Trinitarian dogma was not born of philosophic
reasoning concerning the being of God, but of earnest meditation upon the
facts of revelation, upon the person and work of Christ.”
Apostolic Fathers- The apostolic fathers do not make frequent
mention of the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, they distinguish him from—and place him on an equality with—the Father and the son.
2nd Century Against
Gnosticism- The deity of Christ
begins to have dogmatic significance and is expressed in clearer
terms.
Justin Martyr often calls Christ “God”; he even
calls him “God” with the definite article prefixed to the term,
ho theos, and
ascribes different exalted attributes to him. The immanent relations
between the Father and the Son is not yet clear from his
writings. Justin’s concept of
the trinity is faulty in certain respects: “The Father is hidden, in
opposition to the Son; he teaches the generation of the Son by the will of
the Father and with a view to creation; and he represents the Son as
subordinate to the Father.” The Church later would reject these
errors. Some have called Justin and
Arian, this should not be done.
Justin clearly and unequivocally teaches that the Son is God. He states that the Son was not created by
generated, and he explains this by using the illustrations of one fire
kindled by another and of the word that proceeds out of one’s
mouth. Although very influenced by
Greek philosophy, Justin proved from the Word of God the Logos-nature of
Christ, his preexistence, generation, the creation of all things through
the Logos, Christ’s Sonship and his
Godhood.
Irenaeus is the ardent opponent of the Gnostic conception
of the Deity and of the theory that makes the Logos the rational principle
in the universe. The Logos is not a
creature but a hypostatic (distinctly personal) Word, preexistent, very
God, etc. Irenaeus
does not fully indicate how the trinity exists in the unity, and how
Father, Son, and Spirit, though possessing one and the same divine nature,
are nevertheless distinct.
Tertullian complements and corrects the teachings of Irenaeus. He
teaches that the three persons are “of one substance, of one
condition, and of one power; they are the one God.” “The mystery of the economy
distributes the unity into a trinity.” He says as a ray of the sun is also the
sun, so there are divers “aspects, forms, images and modulations”
in the one and undivided substance.
The Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit is distinct from
both, but they have the name of God and Lord in common. They are “one God” not be
separated. Tertullian
furnishes the Latin concepts and the terms that are necessary to express
the true meaning of the Trinitarian dogma.
Origen conceived of the generation of the Son as an
eternal process immanent in the being of God. The “generation” of the Son
is “eternal.” The Father
and the Son have all the divine attributes in common: the Father and the
Son are one. It is not true that
besides God we also worship the Son, but in God we worship the Son. Origen falls
back upon subordinationism while affirming the
unity and equality and trying to keep the distinctions between the persons
of the Godhead. Origen
represented the Father as “God” with the definite article
prefixed to the term ho theos and the Son as God with the article omitted theos.
Council of Nicea
(325)- The
church did not follow Origen. It rejected subordinationism,
and at Nicea it confessed the full, true divinity
of Christ. Nicea
maintained the personal distinctions in the being of God and confessed that
the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) were God. Before Nicea
the main difficulty was to derive the trinity from unity; after Nicea the opposite difficulty presented itself.
The Development of the Trinity by Athanasius, the Three Cappadocians,
and Augustine- The complete
development of the Trinity came from Athanasius, the
three Cappadocians, and Augustine. Athanasius devoted his entire life to the defense
of the doctrine of the Trinity. He
rejects the Gnostic and Arian dualism between God and the world together
with all its intermediate beings. In
God there are no non-essential elements.
God does not become anything; he is everything eternally. Just as the Trinity is from eternity so
it is to eternity; hence, Father, Son, and Spirit are from eternity to
eternity. Athanasius
maintains the unity of the Trinity by teaching that they three are
“the same in essence,” in “substance” and in
attributes; that the Father is the “first principle” and the
“fountain” of the Godhead.
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Gregory Nazienzen build upon
Athanasius’ doctrine of the Trinity. The entire Greek Church has accepted this
doctrine as embodied in the decisions of the ecumenical councils of which
this church recognizes the first seven, and it differs from the Western view
only with reference to the expression filioque (and from the Son). Augustine rejected all the earlier
theories that posited a dualism between the Father and the Son. The Son, being himself very God, is not
less invisible than the Father and is perfectly equal to the Father. Augustine teaches that God’s very
essence dwells equally in three persons.
Augustine arrives at a different conception of OT theophanies.
Formerly, these theophanies had been
referred to as revelations of the Logos inasmuch as the Father is hidden,
but Augustine ascribes them as well to the Father and to the Spirit, who as
well as the Son are able to reveal themselves and whose manifestations
cannot be separated from those of the Son.
Augustine completed what Tertullian began.
Hi |
