During the era of the early Church Fathers dogmas were articulated as simple creeds, which focused more on the holy life. Analytical reflection upon the gospel was secondary to the practice of Christian ethics, such as love, meekness, humility, etc…
Eventually the church began facing opposition beyond hatred and mockery. Christianity was being attacked scientifically as Bavinck says “in a manner not unlike present day opposition”, which is followed by an editorial footnote mentioning works for today’s atheists such as Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Although the scientific polemic did not overcome Christianity, many pagans began to combine pagan philosophies with Christianity. The greatest influence of which was Gnosticism. Fundamentally the Gnostics believed that secret knowledge was the only way to Salvation, and you could only gain access to this knowledge through mystical intellectual exercises. Also the Gnostics view matter as evil and spiritual as good that when applied or combined to Christianity denies the human nature of Jesus, and that God’s creation as good.
These attacks forced the Church to begin to reflect and analysis the content of revelation, and to formulate and articulate true Christian knowledge against all forms of false unbelieving knowledge. So as the Gnostics began presenting philosophies as a religious process, the Christian apologist accepted God and His word as supreme truth and the only philosophy that could unite all elements of truth.
Two schools of thought emerged as the Church began to develop a defense for the faith, an apologetic. One school, represented by Tertullian and others, was sharply opposed to philosophy and summarized their position with the saying “What fellowship is there between Athens and Jerusalem, academy in the Church?” Although Tertullian himself used philosophy by coming to a good necessary consequence from the plain reading of scripture when we began make some fundamental claims concerning the Trinity and Christology.
The Alexandrian theologians alternatively adopted a different attitude toward philosophy. Clement and Origen wanted to use the tools of philosophy to develop church doctrines into a speculative science. Ultimately what Origen wanted to do for Christianity is what Philo did for Judaism. Origen wanted to use philosophical language and categories of the day to articulate Christian truth. This runs the risk of collapsing philosophy into theology, where the distinctions of Christianity are blurred or even lost. But nonetheless as Bavinck teaches us by the 3rd century the church had assumed a firm position by rescuing the independence of Christianity, which set the stage in history for the great internal debates over the formulation of the Trinity and the God Man, Christ. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople formulated these doctrines further laying the foundation for the Church and her continued pursuit of Dogma.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Ch 2 Sect 1 The Formation of Dogma
“The Bible is not a textbook of theology; its language is the fresh and immediate expression of concrete life. Dogmatic theology arises from sustained reflection on the truth of Scripture, and is the task of the whole church, not just of individuals.” (pg. 30) Dogmatic theology arises from within the church and here Bavinck wants to guard against two extremes, an over estimating of the church’s tradition on the one hand, and an under estimation or as he says “disparaging” of the tradition on the other
The concern with overestimating tradition, is that often tradition allowed pagan philosophy to influence and alter Christian truth. Some, such as Adolph van Harnack, would argue that the only way to prevent this influence was to reduce Christianity to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount and summarize the Gospel as “the fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, and the infinite worth of the human soul”. This would be the disparaging of tradition, throw out all tradition, creeds, and formulations, except this new one that Harnack dogmatically introduces.
The Roman Catholicism is the example of an overestimation of tradition, where Christian truth is embodied in the official Church teaching. The official church teaching is manifested in Scripture and tradition that only the Pope can interpret. Ultimately then, tradition has as much authority and the man interpreting tradition has as much authority as Scripture.
The Reformation was on guard against both an over estimation and an under estimation of tradition. The Reformation would accept tradition, and creeds, and formulation, as long as they conformed and reflected the truth of Scripture. Scripture would be the ultimate authority for all dogmatic reflection through the history and tradition of the church.
The concern with overestimating tradition, is that often tradition allowed pagan philosophy to influence and alter Christian truth. Some, such as Adolph van Harnack, would argue that the only way to prevent this influence was to reduce Christianity to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount and summarize the Gospel as “the fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, and the infinite worth of the human soul”. This would be the disparaging of tradition, throw out all tradition, creeds, and formulations, except this new one that Harnack dogmatically introduces.
The Roman Catholicism is the example of an overestimation of tradition, where Christian truth is embodied in the official Church teaching. The official church teaching is manifested in Scripture and tradition that only the Pope can interpret. Ultimately then, tradition has as much authority and the man interpreting tradition has as much authority as Scripture.
The Reformation was on guard against both an over estimation and an under estimation of tradition. The Reformation would accept tradition, and creeds, and formulation, as long as they conformed and reflected the truth of Scripture. Scripture would be the ultimate authority for all dogmatic reflection through the history and tradition of the church.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Chapter 2: The History and Literature of Dogmatic Theology
In the 1st chapter Bavinck has been arguing for a scientific, systematic approach to dogmatic theology. As he says on page 27 of chapter 1, “The content of dogmatic theology is the knowledge of God as he as revealed it in Christ through his Word.” So the content and object of study for the theologian is the Holy Scriptures, which provides the subject matter, such as the Doctrine of God, Doctrine of Creation, Doctrine of Salvation (Soteriology) etc… of study. This study is done by using what Bavinck terms the synthetic-genetic method whereby we don’t read verses, chapters, or even books of the Bible in isolation of each other, but rather study each verse, chapter, and book in concert with all of redemptive history. For instance, what God said to Adam and Eve about the promised seed in Genesis 3:15, has huge implications throughout each book of the bible and all of redemptive history.
This content and this scientific investigation can only be done through faith, by a man of faith. What God has spoken, man ought to believe is the backbone of faith. Also, this dogmatic theology must be done in from within the community of believers, the church.
The church is not only the believers of this present day and age, but the community of all believers from the beginning of history till Christ’s return. And here in Chapter 2 Bavinck, who was known for his brilliant scholarship in Historical Theology, stresses the importance at looking at the historical developments of theology in the Church. The church being an organic institution, ordained by Jesus Christ, is expected to grow not only quantitatively (number of believers), but also qualitatively in knowledge, piety, and worship. As Bavinck says on page 30 the Holy Spirit is leading and will not rest until the fullness of knowledge and wisdom of God in Christ has filled the church. So by building upon the work of previous generations guided by the Spirit, the Dogmatic Theologian will advance the truth and knowledge of God, for the glory of God, and for the good of the church.
This content and this scientific investigation can only be done through faith, by a man of faith. What God has spoken, man ought to believe is the backbone of faith. Also, this dogmatic theology must be done in from within the community of believers, the church.
The church is not only the believers of this present day and age, but the community of all believers from the beginning of history till Christ’s return. And here in Chapter 2 Bavinck, who was known for his brilliant scholarship in Historical Theology, stresses the importance at looking at the historical developments of theology in the Church. The church being an organic institution, ordained by Jesus Christ, is expected to grow not only quantitatively (number of believers), but also qualitatively in knowledge, piety, and worship. As Bavinck says on page 30 the Holy Spirit is leading and will not rest until the fullness of knowledge and wisdom of God in Christ has filled the church. So by building upon the work of previous generations guided by the Spirit, the Dogmatic Theologian will advance the truth and knowledge of God, for the glory of God, and for the good of the church.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Ch 1 Sect 4 Faith and Method: The Organization of Theology
While contending that dogmatic theology is a science, it also has a personal character. The revelation of God which communicates knowledge about himself, generates faith in our hearts. This knowledge is not abstract and theoretical, as other sciences, but is vital personal knowledge. Hence faith is imperative for dogmatic theology. (p21) Faith however is not the source of knowledge, but rather the instrument that receives the external Word of God which is then testified to us internally by the Holy Spirit. So the purpose of believers is to take the thoughts of God laid down in scripture and testified in our conscience and understand them rationally.
So if dogmatic theology is going to be done scientifically, with a personal faith, then what is the methodology? Bavinck suggests a method which he calls the synthetic-genetic method. By starting with the source, one then demonstrates how dogmas have risen organically from scripture. Scripture is that source, it is the foundation of theology (pincipium theologiae) for which dogmas are developed. This broad foundation provides a way of understanding scripture not as single isolated texts, but rather each verse in context of the whole. The synthetic-genetic method brings the word of God in the context of Redemptive History together in such a way that not only conveys facts, but clearly illumines those facts themselves. (p23)
Through the history of the Church a systematized approach has been developed and improved upon from Origen and Augustine (Early Church), to Lombard, Bonaventure and Thomas(Middle Ages), to Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin(Reformation). But along side this development the church came under attack by philosophies of the enlightenment which through a variety of approaches wanted to put autonomous man and his reason as the principia for knowledge. The most influential philosophy from this period to impact the church was that of Kant. In his published works he attempted to demonstrate that God was unknowable, and man has no access to God other than a faith based upon the feeling of moral duty. This of course gave birth to the subjective piety of “feeling of absolute dependence” , which is foundation of the theology of Schleiermacher. This robbed the Church of its dogmatic starting point of God’s revelation to man in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible no longer was the absolute authority and foundation for knowledge.
The ghost’s of the philosopher’s from the enlightenment continue to linger like a musty smell in a damp basement. Even today reformed theologians begin their work elsewhere other than the Word of God. When theologians attempts to prove and find reasons for believing in the God of the bible from nature, or reason apart from scripture, they have forsaken the starting point. The foundation of faith, and the source of the articles of faith are one in the same. (p26) The foundation of the Christian faith, and the content of the Christian faith both arise from the Holy Word of God. God speaks, and we believe trust and obey. It is not as if God speaks, and then we go about to determine if it was really God who spoke. If we could prove that God spoke from some other source than the Bible, then that source would have authority over the bible, because the bible would be dependent upon that source.
As Bavinck so well notes, the content of dogmatic theology is the knowledge of God as he has revealed it in Christ through his Word. (p27). The synthetic-genetic method uses God’s revelation in the beginning, middle, and end. I will end this post with a quote from the last page of chapter 1 (p28). “Dogmatic Theology is the system of the knowledge of God as he has revealed himself in Christ; it is the system of the Christian religion. And the essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that what the Father has created, 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. Dogmatic Theology shows us how God, who is all-sufficient in himself, nevertheless glorifies himself in creation, which, even when it is torn apart by sin, is gathered up again in Christ (Eph 1:10)”
So if dogmatic theology is going to be done scientifically, with a personal faith, then what is the methodology? Bavinck suggests a method which he calls the synthetic-genetic method. By starting with the source, one then demonstrates how dogmas have risen organically from scripture. Scripture is that source, it is the foundation of theology (pincipium theologiae) for which dogmas are developed. This broad foundation provides a way of understanding scripture not as single isolated texts, but rather each verse in context of the whole. The synthetic-genetic method brings the word of God in the context of Redemptive History together in such a way that not only conveys facts, but clearly illumines those facts themselves. (p23)
Through the history of the Church a systematized approach has been developed and improved upon from Origen and Augustine (Early Church), to Lombard, Bonaventure and Thomas(Middle Ages), to Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin(Reformation). But along side this development the church came under attack by philosophies of the enlightenment which through a variety of approaches wanted to put autonomous man and his reason as the principia for knowledge. The most influential philosophy from this period to impact the church was that of Kant. In his published works he attempted to demonstrate that God was unknowable, and man has no access to God other than a faith based upon the feeling of moral duty. This of course gave birth to the subjective piety of “feeling of absolute dependence” , which is foundation of the theology of Schleiermacher. This robbed the Church of its dogmatic starting point of God’s revelation to man in the Holy Scriptures. The Bible no longer was the absolute authority and foundation for knowledge.
The ghost’s of the philosopher’s from the enlightenment continue to linger like a musty smell in a damp basement. Even today reformed theologians begin their work elsewhere other than the Word of God. When theologians attempts to prove and find reasons for believing in the God of the bible from nature, or reason apart from scripture, they have forsaken the starting point. The foundation of faith, and the source of the articles of faith are one in the same. (p26) The foundation of the Christian faith, and the content of the Christian faith both arise from the Holy Word of God. God speaks, and we believe trust and obey. It is not as if God speaks, and then we go about to determine if it was really God who spoke. If we could prove that God spoke from some other source than the Bible, then that source would have authority over the bible, because the bible would be dependent upon that source.
As Bavinck so well notes, the content of dogmatic theology is the knowledge of God as he has revealed it in Christ through his Word. (p27). The synthetic-genetic method uses God’s revelation in the beginning, middle, and end. I will end this post with a quote from the last page of chapter 1 (p28). “Dogmatic Theology is the system of the knowledge of God as he has revealed himself in Christ; it is the system of the Christian religion. And the essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that what the Father has created, 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. Dogmatic Theology shows us how God, who is all-sufficient in himself, nevertheless glorifies himself in creation, which, even when it is torn apart by sin, is gathered up again in Christ (Eph 1:10)”
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Ch1 Sect 3 The Problem of Certainty: Church and Scripture
If dogmatic theology is going to be treated as a science, is there a way to arrive at “Certainty”. Bavinck asks the question “Does theology posses a certain degree of independence from other sciences?” (p14) The question of certainty that Bavinck asks, I take to mean, how we can be certain of the truth of who God is and what he has done, through faith. Not a truth of a simple fact, but a truth gives rest, assurance, encouragement to our very souls.
Bavinck notes the way we arrive about certainty in one scientific discipline is different than another. There is an intuitive certainty we have about the shortest distance between 2 points is straight line. We also have certain sense perceptions that guide us in certainty, when we see water boil, we are certain that it is hot. The point Bavinck is making is that Dogmatic Theology as a science has independence from other science in its method, otherwise science would dictate to theology its method and object of study. If God exists and has made himself known, he cannot be contained by our senses and reasoning and therefore the use of certainty found in mathematics , physics or philosophy would not apply. The ground of certainty for theology is Revelation. What God has revealed about himself and his world in Holy Scripture. Our epistemic source (source of knowledge) is not ourselves, but the truth God has spoken in the Bible.
Bavinck goes to make a distinction from “biblical theology” and dogmatic theology. Bavinck is using the term “biblical theology” to mean a summary of scripture. However, as Bavinck points out, even when one attempts to summarize the bible, there will be a certain bias that is shaped by culture, experience and church tradition. (p17) Even a simple summary of the bible will not be without certain influences. Also, Bavinck notes, the bible is not a legal document that is to be used to answer specific questions, or given to us to parrot exact words and phrases. Rather God’s revelation of himself in Scripture is given to so that man may think God’s thoughts after him in God’s world. Dogmatic Theology is to set forth, in a systematic fashion, the thoughts of God.
Dogmatic Theology systematizes the thoughts of God in a scholarly form and method (p18), done within the community of the Church (19), using the doctrine of Scripture as the sole foundation of theology.(p19) And this, as Bavinck closes the section, can only be with Scripture as the external foundation(principium externum).
"This foundation of first principal suggests an organic connection. In a formal sense, there are no dogmas in Scripture, but the material for them is all to be found in it. Hence dogmatic theology can be defined as the truth of Scripture, absorbed and reproduced by the thinking consciousness of the Christian theologian" p20
Bavinck notes the way we arrive about certainty in one scientific discipline is different than another. There is an intuitive certainty we have about the shortest distance between 2 points is straight line. We also have certain sense perceptions that guide us in certainty, when we see water boil, we are certain that it is hot. The point Bavinck is making is that Dogmatic Theology as a science has independence from other science in its method, otherwise science would dictate to theology its method and object of study. If God exists and has made himself known, he cannot be contained by our senses and reasoning and therefore the use of certainty found in mathematics , physics or philosophy would not apply. The ground of certainty for theology is Revelation. What God has revealed about himself and his world in Holy Scripture. Our epistemic source (source of knowledge) is not ourselves, but the truth God has spoken in the Bible.
Bavinck goes to make a distinction from “biblical theology” and dogmatic theology. Bavinck is using the term “biblical theology” to mean a summary of scripture. However, as Bavinck points out, even when one attempts to summarize the bible, there will be a certain bias that is shaped by culture, experience and church tradition. (p17) Even a simple summary of the bible will not be without certain influences. Also, Bavinck notes, the bible is not a legal document that is to be used to answer specific questions, or given to us to parrot exact words and phrases. Rather God’s revelation of himself in Scripture is given to so that man may think God’s thoughts after him in God’s world. Dogmatic Theology is to set forth, in a systematic fashion, the thoughts of God.
Dogmatic Theology systematizes the thoughts of God in a scholarly form and method (p18), done within the community of the Church (19), using the doctrine of Scripture as the sole foundation of theology.(p19) And this, as Bavinck closes the section, can only be with Scripture as the external foundation(principium externum).
"This foundation of first principal suggests an organic connection. In a formal sense, there are no dogmas in Scripture, but the material for them is all to be found in it. Hence dogmatic theology can be defined as the truth of Scripture, absorbed and reproduced by the thinking consciousness of the Christian theologian" p20
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Ch1 Sect 2: Theology as the Science of God
The knowledge of God as Bavinck says must always remain the knowledge of faith. And at the same time God has revealed himself in such a way that from revelation we can learn and know him by faith. This leads Bavinck to conclude, that if God’s revelation contains real knowledge, this knowledge can be thought through scientifically and gathered up into a system. (p8-9)
This system in general terms is the gathering of a particular body of knowledge into an intelligent, coherent, and meaningful ordered whole. (p9). And as a theologian who engages in this enterprise has the sole responsibility to think God’s thoughts after him and to produce a unity of God’s thoughts found in scripture. (p10) Of course this is done in the tradition of the Church, where the Church grounded in scripture and by the direction of the Holy Spirit will leave a legacy for the next generations of theologians to build upon. “To set Scripture over or against church teaching is as wrong as separating heart and mind”. (p12)
I think what Bavinck is getting at is there should be a certain organic growth in dogmatic theology, where the next generation builds and expands the knowledge of the believer using the best of the work done by previous generations.
This system in general terms is the gathering of a particular body of knowledge into an intelligent, coherent, and meaningful ordered whole. (p9). And as a theologian who engages in this enterprise has the sole responsibility to think God’s thoughts after him and to produce a unity of God’s thoughts found in scripture. (p10) Of course this is done in the tradition of the Church, where the Church grounded in scripture and by the direction of the Holy Spirit will leave a legacy for the next generations of theologians to build upon. “To set Scripture over or against church teaching is as wrong as separating heart and mind”. (p12)
I think what Bavinck is getting at is there should be a certain organic growth in dogmatic theology, where the next generation builds and expands the knowledge of the believer using the best of the work done by previous generations.
Ch 1 Sect 1: Terminology
There is one term in this section the Bavinck really wants us to understand. Dogma. Why is it important, what purpose does it serve, what do we have without it? Here are some quotes from this section I found helpful.
“Dogmas are truths properly set forth in Scripture as things to be believed. Although a truth confessed by the church is not dogma because the church recognizes it but solely because it rests on God’s authority, religious dogma is always a combination of divine authority and churchly confession.” p4
“The power of the church to lay down dogmas is not sovereign and legislative; it is a power of service to and for the Word of God. Still, this authority has been granted by God to his church; it enables and authorizes her to confess the truth of God and to formulate it in speech and writing.“ P5
"A religion without dogma, however vague and general it may be, does not exist, and non-dogmatic Christianity, in the strictest sense of the word, is an illusion and devoid of meaning" p6
“Dogma is the doctrines of the church, for the articles of faith that are based on the Word of God and therefore obligate everyone of faith. Dogmatic theology, then, is the system of the articles of faith.” p7 “Dogmatic theology is, and can only exist as, the scientific system of the knowledge of God, and dogmatic theology is that knowledge that God has revealed in his Word to the church concerning himself and all creatures as they stand in relation to him.” p8
All this must be done in faith, and towards the end of the section Bavinck slips in some fundamental word about faith.
“Faith is the faculty by which we come to know (God), it is not the source”. p8
“Dogmas are truths properly set forth in Scripture as things to be believed. Although a truth confessed by the church is not dogma because the church recognizes it but solely because it rests on God’s authority, religious dogma is always a combination of divine authority and churchly confession.” p4
“The power of the church to lay down dogmas is not sovereign and legislative; it is a power of service to and for the Word of God. Still, this authority has been granted by God to his church; it enables and authorizes her to confess the truth of God and to formulate it in speech and writing.“ P5
"A religion without dogma, however vague and general it may be, does not exist, and non-dogmatic Christianity, in the strictest sense of the word, is an illusion and devoid of meaning" p6
“Dogma is the doctrines of the church, for the articles of faith that are based on the Word of God and therefore obligate everyone of faith. Dogmatic theology, then, is the system of the articles of faith.” p7 “Dogmatic theology is, and can only exist as, the scientific system of the knowledge of God, and dogmatic theology is that knowledge that God has revealed in his Word to the church concerning himself and all creatures as they stand in relation to him.” p8
All this must be done in faith, and towards the end of the section Bavinck slips in some fundamental word about faith.
“Faith is the faculty by which we come to know (God), it is not the source”. p8
Friday, January 6, 2012
Ch. 1 Dogmatic Theology as a Science
It may seem novel to some, futile to others, and even ridiculous to most, that the study of theology could be considered a science or done in a scientific way. So what is science? The word science comes from the Latin “scientia,” meaning knowledge. Knowledge is also closely related to truth. It would be of no value to have knowledge about make believe objects or subjects. Science, we could say, is the investigation of things that are true. We often think of the natural sciences and the methodology of the science such as the scientific method. Science as a discipline includes certain methodologies, subjects and objects. Physics , for example, uses the a certain methodology (scientific method) to study a certain subject( the physical world, matter and motion) by examining specific objects, the moon , stars, etc…
In the opening chapter, Bavinck sets out to argue and prove that theology can be done scientifically. If theology is to be considered a science, what are its method, subject, and object? And why must theology be done in a dogmatic fashion?
In the opening chapter, Bavinck sets out to argue and prove that theology can be done scientifically. If theology is to be considered a science, what are its method, subject, and object? And why must theology be done in a dogmatic fashion?
Monday, January 2, 2012
Welcome
Welcome to the Providence Presbyterian Church 2012 book study of Herman Bavinck's abridged version of Reformed Dogmatics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)