Years ago I heard a talk by Ligon Duncan that said Bible guys should read systematic guys. Since then I have always tried to read some large systematic work. It was also in that talk that I first heard about Herman Bavinck because his four-volume work had only recently been translated into English a few years before. Bavinck was a Duch Reform guy writing around the start of the 1900s. It seems that it took about 100 years for his work to be translated into English. I think that means what he has to say might still be of interest to people. I don't think anything I will ever write will stand the test of time.
Normally the systematic books that I read, take me about a year to get through, (including dry spells and quick bursts throughout). This first volume was no different and is a little demoralising as this first volume is the Prolegomena, which is like the preliminary remarks before actually getting to the systematic theology proper. That is not to say there was no theology in this volume, just that it has taken me a year to get past the introductory remarks. I think it was in Grudem's systematic where at the start he said he is taken as a given, or a prior, that God exists and that scripture is God's word, for you need these two bases if you are going to go anywhere in theology. Bavinck doesn't want to start off with assuming that much, so spends a whole volume explaining terms and methods about how one could go about discovering something about God.
In broad brush strokes, the book lays out the goal and the problem and objections to how we can understand something about God, and methods we could go about doing this. There is also a large section that gives an overview of Christianity throughout the last two thousand years, with a focus on the East, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed thinking. Then this volume dives into more about understanding, revelation and how we come to know things, along with all the problems of trying to locate the "organ of faith", ie what is it that helps us to believe, like the will, the mind, the emotions etc... I found this last part the most interesting.
Throughout all this discussion, scripture gets a big look in. It is through the Bible that God has revealed something of Himself to us (as Grudem simply assumed). The creation and natural order of things (general revelation) have told us something, but that message is not as clear or specific as what God's revealed will in his word is about how He saved humanity.
Theology as a particular science assumes that God has unmistakably revealed himself; in other words, it assumes the existence, the self-revelation, and the knowability of God and therefore proceeds from a highly significant dogma.
I appreciated some of the humour or one-liners (or snarky comments) that Bavinck puts in here such as:
“Perhaps small sips taken in philosophy lead a person to atheism, but fuller draughts will bring him back to religion.” (citing J. Görres)
Rousseau who raved about the “people of nature” [those in primiative conditions who have been uncorrupted by society] continued to live quietly in France.
Proudhon once stated: “It is astonishing how at the base of all things we find theology.” But to that statement Donoso Cortes correctly replied: “The only astonishing thing in this fact is Mr. Proudhon’s astonishment.”
Those who do not want to embark on scientific investigation until they see the road by which we arrive at knowledge fully cleared will never start. Those who do not want to eat before they understand the entire process by which food arrives at their table will starve to death. And those who do not want to believe the Word of God before they see all problems resolved will die of spiritual starvation.
As the clarity of scripture is a bit of a hobby horse, I put these two quotes here for my own reference later:
What perspicuity means is that the path of salvation is clearly taught and explained. The mediation of church or priest is not essential for this mediation, and the Bible should therefore be the common possession of every believer.
It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such a simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest.
Although it was a while ago since I read it, I remember that John M Frame's Systematic was helpful in epistemology, (although perhaps a little forced through a tri-perspective lens). This volume I think is even better in laying out the problems of understanding and how we go about hearing, understanding and believing revelation from God. There are sections in the last part of this work that I would like to revisit to understand better.
Like all good systematics, key terms are defined and then compared and contrasted with other similar concepts to help untangle any confusion. Throughout all this, the writing felt quite clear, which is a credit to the translators of this work. I have no idea how easy the original Dutch is, but the sentences and their meaning in this volume were easily understood (as much as possible depending on the concepts that were being discussed). At the start of every chapter, the translators even put in their own summary of that chapter beforehand. These summaries alone could probably be collated and made into their own volume. Each summary was about 2 or 3 textbook pages long, and over 4 volumes these summaries would make a decent size book.
While this was a big book, (and there are three more to go) I am glad I slugged my way through it. I am going to have a little break between now and the next volume, but I do plan on slowly over time to get through this large work.
0 comments:
Post a Comment