Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: What’s in a Name?

In our last few posts we’ve been plowing through Bavinck’s analysis of original sin and what was lost by the fall. Human beings did not become ‘sub’ creatures after breaking the covenant or works, but something changed. The original relationship and integrity with God was destroyed when sin took advantage of the commandment. Here is a brief look at Bavinck’s analysis of the nature of sin in what he describes as ‘mystery in variety’.

Sin is not mere heredity, explains Bavinck, it is universal and cannot be summed up in one type of transgression. From a host of scriptural examples, everyone from Augustine to the scholastics argued that the first sin of humans was ‘pride’ or ‘disobedience’ (Rom. 5:9). Protestants emphasize doubt and unbelief occasioned in Eve’s trial. Bavinck asks; was it really one thing or another? Original sin contained within itself a whole variety from disobedience, to self-elevation, pride, homicide, theft, covetousness. It triggered in a range of emotions, feelings and thoughts within the intellect, will, and body. We might say that sin is similar to reading: it takes the whole person to do it. One of the great mysteries of sin is how it is imputed through Adam. Sin is not a physical substance; if it were then it would have been positively created by God and, “[sin] has no efficient but only a deficient cause” (Augustine). Supposing sin is like to a disease or disposition that is ‘handed down’ merely describes symptoms and characteristics; the essence is more elusive.

Whatever it is, sin initiated and continued separation from God. It breaks the health of relationships: Adam blamed Eve, Cain killed Abel, and the world crucified Christ. It is grace, says Bavinck, that after the fall humanity still retained the consciousness that things ought to be different. There is a notion that human beings should conform to the law of God but the reality of that desire is the reverse. The conscience is not the consciousness of communion with God, but rather the “subjective proof” it has been broken. Here we are confronted with a grave dilemma: is the silence of conscience peace or separation ? Bavinck argues the more the conscience functions (develops) and is articulated the more it validates the scriptural view of humanity (Rom. 2:14-16).

Bavinck has presented a very weighty matter for consideration. He has a strong case and quite a command of the data …but … what? Some have put forward that Bavinck’s view of God’s law is much more positivistic than Calvin intended (Helm). A comparison between Bavinck’s treatment of universal guilt (the outset of chapter 3) and Calvin’s (especially Ins . Bks. I. xvi & II.vii) views on providence and natural law indicates the parting nuance. The perspective here is not ‘should I lose sleep over this?’ but rather, ‘I should study this when I can’t sleep.’