Herman Bavinck’s Saved by Grace: Saved by Grace?

There is much to be said in terms of praise for Bavinck’s Saved by Grace, the Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration (RHB, 2008). ‘Profound,’ ‘fine,’ and ‘superb’ are accurate descriptions of this volume and more can be said for Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics (Baker, 2008). Given the long list of fine comments by fine scholars, on a certain level mine is more honest: if I had this book at grad school, I would have had better marks on more than a few papers.

Is the debate between infralapsarian and supralapsarian views of grace important? The short answer is yes. Exploring this rocky terrain is very difficult and, to push the analogy further, the study can be similar climbing Everest: a lifetime achievement for a mere three minute view at the top. What God was ‘thinking’ for his plan of salvation from all eternity is incomprehensible. At what point did he ‘decree’ to save his elect is equally unknowable even for three minutes. Christian theology and dogma often admits abstraction when explaining the decrees of God to create, redeem, and leave reprobate, all of which directs its focus on the doctrine of justification. As J. Mark Beach observes in his excellent introductory essay, the issue between infra and supra , Kuyper and Bavinck, is theological language that is potentially unbiblical and confusing.

Is “When are we saved?” a legitimate question? Kuyper’s supralapsarianism believes ‘the sinner’s justification’ doesn’t wait until she is converted, or even born, but is an act of God not limited to any moment in human history. God has judged his people favorably (in Christ) from all eternity. Bavinck, says J. Beach, concedes this to a point, but as sinners alienated from the life of God, one can only assume they are on the wrong side of God’s decree. Essentially the supra position loses sight of decree and fulfillment, time and eternity, when it comes to explaining justification by faith alone. At this point the debate could fruitlessly run into eternity as the supra position more successfully accounts for an active reprobation while the infra position makes better sense for historical outlook. Ultimately what Christian theology (especially for baptism and evangelism) and preaching needs to resolve is how to avoid determinist ‘Divine fiat’ language when it comes to grace, and preserve the decrees as responsible for history and not the destroyer of it. Bavinck’s solution characteristically is one of grace seeking certainty, and with so many differing views of grace, this is no easy task.

For all the variations in Reformed writings, says Bavinck, the substance is the same: The Triune God works salvation in his people, and because they are counted ‘[spiritually] dead in trespasses’ from his perspective, only God can regenerate those he calls. In some ways regeneration depends on the human will, but not ultimately. Regeneration is God’s work, so it may come before an expression or notion of faith either internally or externally is understood. In this restricted sense, regeneration is a principle of grace that is infused into a person through the Spirit. In a broad sense the infusion of grace occurs in cooperation with the Word. Yet God’s goodness is immeasurable and it extends to some who cannot decide for themselves due to, perhaps, a handicap or die in infancy. For Bavinck, the infralapsarian position better explains the person and work of Christ as preeminent in the discussion of grace and election, and in whom we can account for the multitude of blessings that follow regeneration such as adoption, reconciliation, forgiveness, and sanctification.

The conversation between infra and supralapsarian views of grace are not isolated to remote seminary classrooms, but are surrounded by other issues such as freewill, the incarnation of Christ, baptism, sanctification, and history, which are rooted in real communities and relationships.