Bintsarovskyi Hidden and Revealed

The Doctrine of God in the Reformed and Eastern Orthodox Traditions
1. Auflage 2021
ISBN: 978-1-68359-490-1
Verlag: Lexham Press
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 376 Seiten

Reihe: Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology

A major contribution to ecumenical reflection on the doctrine of God. The past century has seen renewed interest in the doctrine of God. While theological traditions disagree, their shared commitment to Nicene orthodoxy provides a common language for thinking and speaking about God. This dialogue has deepened our understanding of this shared way of thinking about God, but little has been done across ecumenical lines to explore God's hiddenness in revelation. In Hidden and Revealed, Dmytro Bintsarovskyi explores the hiddenness and revelation of God in two separate theological streams-Reformed and Orthodox. Bintsarovskyi shows that an understanding of both traditions reflects a deep structure of shared language, history, and commitments, while nevertheless reflecting real differences. With Herman Bavinck and John Meyendorff as his guides, Bintsarovskyi advances ecumenical dialogue on a doctrine central to our knowledge of God.

Dmytro Bintsarovskyi (PhD, Theologische Universiteit Kampen) is a Post--Doctoral Research Fellow at the Neo--Calvinism Research Institute of the Theologische Universiteit Kampen.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Bintsarovskyi, Dmytro

Leseproben

2 HERMAN BAVINCK ON KNOWING GOD AS A REVEALED MYSTERY INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF BAVINCK’S LIFE AND THOUGHT Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian. His father, Jan Bavinck, was a minister of the so-called Secession (Afscheiding) churches, which separated from the national church in 1834 and were characterized by deep piety, theological orthodoxy, social passivity, and cultural asceticism. Herman Bavinck was a committed son of the Secession movement. Later in his career he confessed: “I am a child of the Secession and I hope always to remain one.… The best I have I am indebted to the Secession.”1 Modernity, however, also left a deep impression on this child. Bavinck decided to pursue his theological education not at the school of the Secession churches in Kampen (where he spent only a year) but at the University of Leiden, where he could immerse himself in an academic environment and study modern theology firsthand. After graduating from Leiden, Bavinck served for two years as a pastor in a Secession congregation. In 1882, he was appointed professor of dogmatic theology in Kampen, where he stayed until 1902. This period was the most fruitful for Bavinck as a theologian. Between 1895 and 1901, he published the first edition of his magnum opus, Reformed Dogmatics (Gereformeerde Dogmatiek).2 This monumental work was marked by a broad scope of theological reflection, a profound knowledge of the Reformed tradition, and continual interaction with other Christian traditions—mostly Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Remonstrant, but also Methodist, Anabaptist, and Eastern Orthodox—and contemporary philosophical systems. Together with his renowned older colleague, Abraham Kuyper, Bavinck was one of the intellectual leaders of neo-Calvinism, a broad worldview project that aimed to articulate Reformed principles amid the challenges of modernity. In the course of time, Bavinck more and more realized the necessity of interacting with a wide variety of sciences. Gradually, and especially after the completion of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck’s interests shifted from theology to philosophy, pedagogy, and psychology.3 As John Bolt concludes, “Bavinck’s life and thought reflect a serious effort to be pious, orthodox, and thoroughly contemporary.”4 Bavinck was a theologian faithful to his own tradition and an inquisitive thinker about the modern world.5 WHY BAVINCK? Herman Bavinck’s theology is particularly suitable for a comparative analysis with Orthodox thought. The first reason, quite simply, is that Bavinck was a great theologian who articulated the Reformed faith amid the challenges of modernity with rare breadth and depth. According to Cornelius Van Til, “Herman Bavinck has given to us the greatest and most comprehensive statement of Reformed systematic theology in modern times.”6 For this research it is also important that the doctrines of God and his revelation occupy an important place in Bavinck’s theology. For this reason, some refer to him as “een openbaringstheoloog” (“a theologian of revelation”).7 Second, while Bavinck experienced doubts, internal struggles, and shifts in his academic priorities, he remained faithful to his own tradition. Already in his student years, Bavinck had demonstrated strong interest in the early Reformed tradition and Reformed scholasticism.8 His later works consolidated his reputation as an expert in Reformed theology and as one committed to the Reformed tradition. This deep commitment actually encouraged dialogue with other Christian traditions rather than forming an obstacle to it. Indeed, as Arie Brouwer insightfully observes, “The ecumenical movement is best served by faithfulness to one’s own tradition.”9 Third, Bavinck’s works are characterized by an unusually close integration of theology, history, and philosophy. In his review of the second volume of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, Geerhardus Vos writes: “From a formal point of view the most striking feature of Dr. Bavinck’s work is its combination of much material which is usually assigned to the department of the History of Doctrine with what belongs to Dogmatics proper.”10 As other authors put it, Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics is “historically oriented,” is “a history of dogmatics as well as a dogmatics itself,” and bears “a Christian-historical and therefore a catholic character.”11 Bavinck showed real interest in history and held the common theological heritage of all Christians in high esteem. In his own characterization of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck mentions its focus on tradition: “More attention is paid in this work to Patristic and Scholastic theology than is often the case in a Protestant dogmatics.” For Bavinck, this “fellowship with generations past” was an expression of the communion of the saints.12 The importance of this historical consciousness becomes clearer if we consider a helpful distinction made by the Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky. Florovsky laments that his contemporaries focused on “ecumenism in space,” which is “concerned with the adjustments of the existing denominations as they are at the present.”13 He believed that such ecumenism lacked historical depth and overlooked that all Christians share a common history. Florovsky called instead for an “ecumenism in time,” which views “Christian history as one comprehensive whole.”14 Bavinck’s sense of history enabled him to trace developments in Christian theology throughout the centuries and to realize the role of the entire shared tradition for contemporary debates.15 Fourth, Bavinck’s modesty and academic integrity are important for facilitating ecumenical dialogue. He readily recognized the positive aspects in other traditions, religions, and philosophical systems.16 “Tolerant, genial, irenic, he never caricatured an opponent or impugned his motives but tried to give him all the credit he deserved.”17 With respect to other Christian traditions, Bavinck expressed his openness in an irenic, generous orthodoxy. He has been described as “a catholic, ecumenical, and profoundly open person,” whose theology manifests “a catholicity or ecumenical sensibility.”18 His mind was captured by the beauty of catholicity.19 Willem de Wit even proposes to stop calling Bavinck a Calvinist theologian and instead call him “a catholic Reformed theologian,” while Wolter Huttinga, following Gerrit Berkouwer, notes that the word “catholicity” “perhaps best characterizes Bavinck’s theology.”20 Bavinck was well-known for his opposition to separatism in his own denomination. George Harinck draws attention to an ironic observation made by historian George Puchinger: “The most ecumenical protestant dogmatics in the Netherlands was written in Kampen, where they did theology in the most isolationistic way!”21 Although Bavinck’s practical ecumenical efforts were confined to churches of the Reformed tradition, his entire theological stance was rooted in history and characterized by theological depth and openness, which made it reminiscent of a wider ecumenism in time. In the words of John Bolt, Bavinck’s theology sprang from an “ecumenical (genuinely Catholic) Reformed vision, a vision known for its inclusiveness and irenic character as well as its Reformedness.”22 As such, Bavinck’s catholic approach renders it eminently suitable for comparison to the Eastern Orthodox tradition. UNDERLYING CHARACTERISTICS OF BAVINCK’S APPROACH BAVINCK AND MODERNITY Bavinck was nurtured in a religious environment, which tended to guard against the challenges of modernity by way of a steadfast commitment to theological orthodoxy and evidenced little concern for the surrounding culture. Bavinck, however, was not content with this isolated and suspicious approach. Among other reasons, genuine interest in modernity and the pursuit of an academically excellent education led him to Leiden University, which was the leading intellectual center in the Netherlands and the seat of modern theology.23 At Leiden, Bavinck expanded his knowledge of modern ideas and methods and faced an existential crisis, but he remained faithful to the historical Reformed tradition. The struggle with the modernist worldview permeated his entire theological career, from an article titled “The Modern Worldview” (1883) to his oration “Modernism and Orthodoxy” (1911).24 Bavinck realized the need to engage with modern philosophical thought and admitted that old theological formulas, coined in an age when God’s existence and authority were almost universally assumed, could not simply be repeated under the new conditions brought on by the Enlightenment. His articulation of the doctrine of God can only be properly understood against the background of the philosophical tendencies and challenges to which he responded, either explicitly or implicitly. The Primacy of the...