Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: The Superadded Gift (Part 2 of 3)
We’ve been looking at one of the toughest elements in Bavinck’s analysis, freewill and the origin of sin. The long debate between Augustine and Pelagius has seen many attempts at reconciling these views, most all of which fail to be convincing. Bavinck’s critique of Pelagius is masterful, but will his claims for original sin and the natural law prove convincing? We shall see.
Scripture is complicated. It places the origin of sin in the heart of humanity* despite all the provisions (donum superadditum) to maintain her original righteousness. God created mankind in his image, including free personality, especially in holiness with a special endowment of grace that was lost at the fall. The eventual development of the doctrine of concupiscence from Augustine onward, viewed the gift as something of a ‘remedy and a bridle’ to curb the ‘war’ of flesh and spirit. This ‘war’ is natural to man as an earthly and spiritual being, argued a cautious Trent, and once the ‘bridle’ was removed Adam and his descendants “changed for the worseâ€. Concupiscence is not itself sin – but is inclined to sin – and there is little difference in human nature pre/post fall except the need for grace which is infused into the believer in baptism (Bellarmine). For Bavinck this view of concupiscence as ‘weakness’ in human nature is itself a little weak, requiring the qualification, “that whatever is in man, from the understanding to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, [it] has been defiled and crammed with this concup. … the whole of man is nothing but concup.†(Calvin). For Bavinck, original sin consists negatively in the loss of original righteousness, and positively, the corruption of nature rooted in Adam’s trespass.
Original sin is not a ‘war’ between flesh and spirit per se and Bavinck has been clear that defining sin as merely sensual cannot account for hate, envy, or enmity towards God. Humankind is not a pawn in a cosmic eternal struggle between good and evil (Manichean/pantheism) nor is sin non-being but is ultimately dependent on the good for its temporal, ethical operations. Human beings lost the image of God at the fall – which is not a superadded gift, but integral to human nature. The image of God is “displayed the knowledge, holiness, and righteousnessâ€. Sin violated the holiness of the creature; where one was able to maintain and produce righteousness, that faculty (the whole being) now yields the very opposite. They/we didn’t become ‘devils’ but rather than fulfilling the law of God, human desire instead runs ‘after the flesh’ which can no longer be justified (Rom. 3:20, Gal. 3:2). And that’s total depravity: the inability and incapacity of fulfilling spiritual good and deserving eternal punishment. How so? God still required absolute obedience to the ‘law of the covenant of works’ which righteous requirement was brought into the covenant of grace and fulfilled by Christ.
____________
* ‘creature’ is a better term because it encompasses angelic beings. Bavinck’s analysis is focused on Adam, but accounts for angels when relevant.
About Post Author
I would be careful saying human beings lost the image of God at the Fall. This is precluded in Genesis 9:6, a post-lapsarian text, which states that man should not murder because humans are made in the image of God.
Rather, we should distinguish between image narrowly and image broadly considered. Man has lost his true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (the image narrowly considered), but he retains his rational, cognitive and ethical faculties in addition to his positive state of righteousness (the image broadly considered).
Bavinck provides us with an interesting backdrop to the discussion regarding the presence of condign and/or congruent merit in the covenant of works. Thanks for posting this.
Thanks Camden. Bavinck is saying that the image of God is holiness, accidental to the creature – not integral or substantive. In other words, humans lost nothing substantial at the fall (as you say: the image broadly considered) – but where humans had reason to serve God, the freedom from sin to carry out his will, and the holiness to reap the benefits from the covenant of works, now serve the world rather than the Lord. Bavinck appeals to this sinful orientation and disposition mainly between Gen. 3 and Romans 5-7, but also Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 – pre & post diluvian texts. Bavinck maintains his definition of sin as ethical in character is not inconsistent with the loss of the image of God, which he explains is identified (RC) as the superadded gift. (3:138-140). Is he consistent with his view? Tune in next week for another exciting post!
Camden,
While I agree with what you say above, I do have to point out that it is not uncommon in the history of Reformed writing to say that Adam lost the image of God. Thomas Boston, for instance, explains that fallen “men are far from righteousness. They are haters of God because they are haters of His image.” A little later Boston notes, “How the Scripture takes particular notice of fallen Adam’s communicating ‘his’ image to his fallen posterity…” Quoting Gen. 5:1 he writes, “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and called his name ‘Seth’.” Boston continues, “Compare this with verse 1 or that chapter, ‘In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God He created him.’Behold here, how the image after which man was made, and the image after which he is begotten, are opposed.Man was made after the likeness of God ; that is, the holy and righteous God made a holy and righteous creature; but fallen Adam begat a son, not in the likeness of God, but in his own likeness, that is, corrupt sinful Adam begat a corrupt sinful son.”
I do agree that we need to be particular careful not to say that Adam lost everything of the image of God, otherwise redemption would be impossible. Common ground between believers and unbelievers is nothing but the Imago Dei. Men would have to drop into non-existence in order to cease being the Imago Dei. But, it is right and good to show that the image of God is so marred and corrupted that to say Adam ‘begat a son in his own image,” in contrast to the image of God in which he was originally made, is correct.
This is a very difficult subject to do justice to, as is seen the plethora of books that speak to it. There is no small disagreement on this subject–even within the Reformed camp.
Thanks Nick – perhaps my wording was a bit strong. By “being careful” I just want to convey that when we say man has lost the image of God, we’re speaking in the narrow sense of true knowledge, righteousness and holiness and not every single thing bound up with the image. Both of your comments hit this point already. This is great content.
wh0cd5253045 as example