Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: The Superadded Gift (Part 1)

Our last post looked at the fickle problem of the origin of sin. Bavinck’s analysis of Genesis 3 holds that sin’s origin is not explained by the narrative yet it is described in historical terms. The fall of humanity is not itself having the content of the knowledge of good and evil, but the manner in which they would obtain it: apart from God’s guidance and care. So what was lost by the fall? A preternatural gift of grace? The image of God? The answer may surprise you.

Sin is a mystery. It has no right to exist; it has no substance, yet its fruits are evident on a universal scale. Despite sin’s self evident misery a concise definition and description of it is an enormous undertaking. Bavinck’s main objective is to prove that sin is not merely the sensual human nature, or merely a matter of freewill. If sin was purely sensual and carnal, envy, pride, hatred, enmity to God, etc. could never be explained. Human culture and refinement would eventually curb carnal or sensual desires, which is far from experience and contrary to the tenor of the divine covenants. What matters most is that sin is a possibility, phenomena that occurred in the human imagination (á Kempis) and came into existence through the rational faculty of the will in direct disobedience to the law of God.

But how did God allow this to happen? Didn’t God give grace enough to prevent this catastrophic mistake? Is the path of freedom so perilous that God did not have the foresight to see its end result? To get at the answers to these questions one has to look at Romans 7:7-25 through the long discussion between Augustine and Pelagius. Either humanity is born with the image of God, free personality, intact (Pelagius) or it is sinful, immediately deviating from the law of God (Augustine). There is only one of two courses to take: the human will stands outside of an innate tendency towards sin or it is affected and weakened by original sin. If sin is merely in the choosing, then the Pauline Gospel that God will punish lawlessness is incoherent (Rom. 3:9; 5:18; 11:32). The Pelagian view of the will that can make a mistake one minute and correct it another, argues Bavinck, is completely inconsequential to the doctrine of sin;

“This [Pelagian] view of the will never has a fixed nature, a determinate character, and never attains one; it is and remains neutral, indifferent, without any inner bias, always situated between opposites and focusing … in another direction.” (RD, 3:107)

It is hard to imagine the Pelagian view of the will in a pre-fall state of grace, since it would seem forever inclined to choose between moral opposites from its conception. It is less able to discern the initial goodness of humanities upright moral character, as well as the grace given her, that stood with God in the beginning as well.

This leads us to Bavinck’s critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of concupiscence and the donum superadditum . To be continued.