Scripture affirms that God is eternal and that his being is not determined by time (Isa. 41:4; Rev. 1:8; Ps. 90:2; 93:2, et. al.) or measured by time. Bavinck defends the Scriptural view against the twin rivals of Deism and pantheism which confuse the concepts of time and eternity as mathematical quantity and not as quality: “gradual, not essential.” Deism’s own definition of eternity as time infinitely extended in two directions (past/future) is false, says Bavinck, because time serves for God’s existence. Pantheism asserts that eternity is the substantive cause of time which “pulls God down into the stream of time” (Spinoza) causing God’s existence.

Bavinck’s solution to these arguments rests mainly on Aquinas’ and Augustine’s response to Aristotle: the AAA for theological breakdowns. E.P. Heidemann observes that Bavinck sometimes relies too heavily (i.e. conveniently) on Thomas, or Aristotle.[1] Or in this case Augustine. “Time began with the creature” is a more reliable statement than vice versa: Time, whether intrinsic or extrinsic is something that can be measured and used to measure the duration of things in motion. Hence, concludes Augustine and Bavinck, there can be no time in God. Boethius (bk. V) is also brought in as supporting evidence, but, unfortunately for the reader, Bavinck does not (here) treat the Boethian problem that time violates God’s eternality (p. 163). This will eventually flare up into problems with divine foreknowledge and human freedom in Nelson Pike’s classic God and Timelessness and Paul Helm’s ample reply in Eternal God (ch. 6). For some, Bavinck’s discussion of time is out-dated but he does have the one thing that others do not.

God’s eternity is identical with his being and therefore regarded as the fullness and glory of his being. Bavinck does not often employ analogies anywhere in his work, and compared to older classical works e.g. Stephen Charnock, this keeps the discussion fresh and forward moving. Following Thomas’ analogy, God does not inhabit eternity like an idle person suffering from boredom, but like “a cheerful laborer, for whom time barely exists and days fly by.” There is difference between time and eternity but the distinction is a formal one assuming time is innate without self-existence and consciousness. God’s consciousness alone comprehends time, making time subservient to his eternal rule (1 Tim. 1:17).

If theology has any object other than God for its starting point it loses its character. Bavinck has been saying this all along: the subjectivity of modern theology led to an untenable mysticism and pantheism that could not be supported by scripture or the confessions. Across the street from the Reformed, Rome has the view that grace compliments nature leaving Christ on the sidelines waiting to enter into the world and be useful. Other views are usually anthropocentric or create a dualism between God and the world that pushes him and his follower’s right out the door. This cloud is unknowing.

But God has revealed himself to humankind, argues Bavinck, sin notwithstanding. Grace has permeated the world (uniquely through Christ) and is sustained by the creator as easily as a potter shapes clay. The church is certain of this from scripture and her constant testing and validating scripture doctrine. So long as Christian dogmatics retains God as her main objective, the church will thrive in worship and in truth (Heb. 12:1-2).

Tie it all together and you have the bedrock underlying the problems between Pelagius and Augustine, Calvin and Pighius, works and imputed righteousness, repentance and participation, Christ and the world. What do you get for knowing God? Pursuing God? The answer is finding God and enjoying him, putting to bed the uncertainty that comes with not knowing if he’s ‘out there’ or finding him only in a brief moment of crisis or something like that. Put another way, pursuing God with the expectation of anything other than finding him is immediately off track and a recipe for disillusionment. What Bavinck is essentially saying is that the loss of objectivity in theology is the thing responsible for much of the confusion, disorganization and apathy that have plagued the modern era church. Yet for all that Bavinck is unmoved. God’s name and character have been revealed in scripture and testified to in nature. Next time we will undertake Bavinck’s exegesis of the Lord’s Name and a formidable challenge to the pursuit of God.

There are many names given for God across an array of folk and scientific thinking and experience. God does not need a name because there’s no comparison. Citing W. Robinson Smith’s classic work on Semitic religion, “the Semites loved to call God “Lord or King” because they felt completely dependent upon him; names were not used for philosophical theory but were relational. The revelation of the tetragrammaton to Israel proves that God is more than the “one who is.” He is the “Unchangeable One, (faithful), the eternally Self-consistent One, who never leaves or forsakes his people but always again seeks out and saves his own.” His grace, love, and assistance are unchanging because he is so in himself.

Next time we will look pause to consider what Bavinck is up to.

The greatest dangers to theology are words and a devaluation of mystery. If theology becomes an exercise of rhetoric or replaces its objective vision (revelation) for the subjective impression (positivism) theology degenerates into anthropology (Fichte). The evolutionary theory in Bavinck’s day, for example, held that YHWH was a Hittite mountain God adopted by the Hebrews and localized on Mt. Sinai. But God is represented as the Creator (Gen. 2:4b) and “descends” from heaven at the scene of Babel (Gen. 11:5, 7) and “accompanies” Abraham and Jacob on their journeys. Point is, concludes Bavinck, that Old Testament revelation is preparatory, external in nature, “it does indeed furnish true and reliable knowledge of God, but not a knowledge that exhaustively corresponds to his being.” Signs of his presence are darkness (Ex. 20:21; Deut. 4:11; 5:22; 1 Kg. 8:12; 2 Chron. 6:1) possibly to show that natural light does not represent his brilliance.

Who is lost in the cloud of unknowing? From Plotinus to Erigena negative expressions of God’s being are more accurate though less satisfying. Scholasticism expressed God’s attributes in great detail but lost incomprehensibility in the shuffle. The Lutheran and Reformed, says Bavinck, lost sight of the significance of the doctrine yet the Remonstrant/Socinian wing did much worse, “Eternal life, they maintained [Rationalism/Socinianism] does not consist of knowing God but in doing his will.” Who God is becomes unimportant.

Next week we will look at Bavinck’s analysis of God’s incomprehensibility in the shift from theology to philosophy.

The tensions between modern life’s this-world scientific orientation and the pietistic other-worldly contemplation was a concern Bavinck was a pains to address. These two worldviews have inherent dangers to genuine faith; the former slips easily into asceticism and solitude while the other degenerates into, “cold Pelagianism and unfeeling moralism.” These issues, warns Bavinck, directly affect worship and the quality of religious life for those around us.

Bavinck writes with the conviction that God has certainly spoken and revealed himself to the creation from within and without. This is no mere academic exercise: God’s revelation is personal, inviting faith and communion with him through Christ and the Spirit. Our series continues with Bavinck’s view of God’s incomprehensibility right here, next week.

One of the most uncomfortable thoughts for believer and non-believer alike is the possibility that regeneration could take place without one’s knowing it. Or perhaps one’s approval. Those absolutely terrified at the thought described regeneration was obtained mainly though knowledge and mysteries. These mysteries, according to Gnosticism, are a threefold baptism of the elements that protected from evil spirits and even made one a partaker in the divine nature. Neoplatonism also “cut all earthly ties” in striving to achieve contemplation: the soul becomes one with God through illumination. Bavinck wrote at a time when psychology attempted to solve these problems with the riddles of the unconscious. That realm was full of deep impressions, experiences, powers, hidden forces and so on. Once this power was tapped a superhuman potential was unleashed transforming the consciousness.

The problem, says Bavinck, is that these views cannot get into the inner nature of regeneration from an unbiased scientific view. It is always religious and cannot help to have presuppositions of one kind or another which guides its investigation. Dogmatics, similarly, uses confessional language to describe the concepts found in divine revelation. The change in the conscience is often called ‘regeneration’ after a profession of faith. Sometimes regeneration is automatically connected to justification and in the progress of sanctification is understood as repentance and renewal. Essentially, says Bavinck, regeneration is an ethical change brought about by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; it does not change the physical makeup of the human (theosis) but occurs between the heart and the intellect (Calvin).

One cannot begin soteriology with regeneration. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the covenant of grace, the church, means of grace, and external rule of Christ must be treated first. “For if regeneration were objectively detached from the Word,” writes Bavinck, “one would not only no longer be able to make any judgments about the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, but might also draw the obvious conclusion that actually Christ’s person and work are not necessary to salvation, and that God may equally well regenerate the sinner aside from Christ by the Holy Spirit alone.”

The Holy Spirit is the cause of regeneration. He is not the instrument, say as a pen, but he is the author, say as the creator of the concept and the reality. The Gospel is preached and offered to human beings not as ‘elect’ or ‘reprobate’ but as ‘sinners’. This creates many conceptual problems which are not intellectual mind-games, but genuinely impact the quality of an individual’s faith in the life of the church body (or community). Bavinck’s treatment of the doctrinal development of baptism on this point is well worth consulting, especially as baptism physically represents all these issues in one tub.

There is more to life and salvation than just a Pelagian antithesis to saved by grace alone. In modern culture, perhaps in post-modernity as well, there will always be the notion that salvation, strictly speaking, is cultural improvement and social redemption. Self-aware spirituality is in many ways the height of being whereas Bavinck and the reformed see it as the minimal qualification defining a human being. Bavinck’s quote with a citation from Euken deserves to be presented in full:

When Christianity acts as a religion of redemption, it by implication assumes the existence of a sharp contrast between what humans are and what they ought to be. It expresses their inability to reach the summit by gradual self-improvement, and proclaims a transformation by elevation by an immediate intervention of the divine [Holy Spirit]. And this is confirmed by the general experience of the spiritual life. For it shows, “how the Spiritual Life is unable to find its necessary self-reliance in the world of ordinary experience; we have seen a breach between genuine spirituality and the world taking place; and we have seen how the effects of all this … toil in vain without an inner elevation through the energy of an absolute life.”

Speaking to regeneration, Bavinck said that hope characterizes the Christian life. He then thunders down the line rounding up Pelagians. Á Brakel picks up where Bavinck leaves off: hope has certainty, a special perspective and usefulness for everyday life.

Hope is a propensity, á Brakel writes, a principle character given by the Spirit in regeneration. Hope is improved by experience. When it comes to contradictions, roadblocks, hurdles, and the drudgery of the mundane hope is no worse for the wear. God foreknows we need hope and gives it as freely as wisdom (James 1:5, 12). There are many spiritual benefits for exercising hope (against taking the attitude of unbelief and worry) but how are the believer’s goals certain if the ‘means’ are obscure?

Á Brakel says hope gains certainty and confidence in God’s promises of eternal life, salvation (temporal deliverance), and future benefits as represented in scripture. Some ministers might add to the promises a new car, home, happy marriage, and other stuff to the list which materially would solidify God’s salvation. Á Brakel might ask, with scripture, how can anything else compare with the true knowledge of God and his eternal glory (Psalm 73)? Compare anything in life next to experiencing the certainty of salvation and you discover the logic of faith to be correct, God to be true. Á Brakel believes that hope attains the right way of communion with God: “the result of hope is holy industry.”*

There are many examples of faith overcoming all odds, but hope often seems to be a missing element from the stories. Joseph was enslaved and imprisoned in ancient Egypt. The Apostles returned to Galilee not knowing what to expect. Rev. Elshout was locked in a basement for five years translating á Brakel. Faith touches reason, but hope is included as well, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).

___

* This is not to disparage prayer for daily needs. Brakel’s treatment of prayer is very generous. Here Brakel confines his view of hope in direct relation to God’s glory in revealing himself and providing eternal salvation.

The New Testament presentation of rebirth and resurrection is summed up in hope. Bavinck writes, “Hope characterizes [the believer’s] whole lifestyle … it is not a static possession, but living, active, and strong.” Baptism represents faith and renewal of the inner-person as conducted by the person of the Holy Spirit. There is a new perspective in the believer: they walk in newness of life obtaining justification, adoption, and gain the assurance of adoption through the witness of the Spirit (Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6; 2 Cor. 1:22). Rebirth has less of a connection to calling in John than found in Paul. In John’s Gospel, rebirth is a work of the Father, “who gave his own to Christ … even before his incarnation.” Christ was, after all, the Logos though not everyone recognized him or received him (John 1:5, 9-11). Now, if regeneration is a response to a call -a receiving of faith from God- and not a ‘work’ performed to merit eternal life, how does that work?

I believe, help me in my unbelief

The sinful will of humans is responsible for unbelief. Pelagianism does not work in practice, nor any similar view that ascribes the final cause of salvation to the human will; it introduces grace merely as the restoration of volitional choice. Unless the right choice is made there is no salvation for that person: one minute they are capable, the next minute they are not. And it’s more exclusionary than one would imagine. To say that salvation consists in the choosing excludes infants who die prematurely. From the perspective of the congregation, the interest of faith (choice) rests entirely in the competency of the minister to present the gospel. What if, one Lord’s Day, at the critical moment the message of the gospel was bungled and the meaning confused? The chance to choose was lost. So it is far better and correct to say that God grants his grace freely to sinners he chooses out of his holiness, mercy, and infinite wisdom. I am willing, said our savior, be cleansed, is the gracious attitude of the New Testament.

Sin had disrupted the world and wrecked havoc but humankind continued to exist. We owe it to the ‘external call’ of the law (vocatio realis), says Bavinck, that families, society, religion, arts and sciences have kept the human race from sinking into utter self-annihilation. But in terms of real salvation and divine calling, a calling unto fellowship in life eternal, this is only the bare minimum. The world, says John, did not know the Logos nor did it receive Christ (John 1:3, 10). The Gospel call (vocatio verbalis) of Christ does not cancel out the law mediated by nature and history but transcends it. How, you ask Bavinck? The Gospel is an invitation to faith in the grace of God, not an invitation to obedience to the law but is fully is accompanied by the witness of the Holy Spirit at work in the members of the church.

The tensions between law and gospel, faith and reason, accepting and rejecting, works, righteousness and so on will always be with us. On the broad spectrum between Reformed and Universalists one thing is certain: “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.” The trick, says Bavinck, is how to turn that faith into a reality. A problem is immediately raised once the God-appointed order becomes reinterpreted or flipped: preach a message that faith is produced in the choosing (created through human activity) and the gospel looses its certainty and definite character. Christ made salvation possible for anyone but not actual for no one. The imperative of salvation sinks to a moral example. Either God gives his grace or it evolves out of a long process of keeping rules and morals.

Can a pastor tell a dying man he has all the time in the world to believe in God’s grace? On the other hand not everyone accepts the message of the cross but rather reject it. Our next post will examine this willingness or unwillingness to faith in Bavinck’s masterful treatment.

One of the faster ways to gain a full perspective on patience is being a parent. If one were to reflect on a time in childhood when denied a toy, a treat, or play it could rekindle a frumpy feeling. But as a parent one is fully aware of the value of patience when doling out toys and sweets. A good round of experience and reflection in this area, especially when dealing with impatient children is, ‘Wow. I wish I could have been more patient when I was three.’ And for good reason.

Á Brakel sees patience as one of the most gracious of all Christian dispositions: it is the most childlike. Through the spiritual gift of patience, one has meekness, willingness, self-denial, belief (true faith), hope, and love to God. Patience is near the most perfect language in all our conversation with the Lord. Non-believer’s cannot truly be patient (as a gift from God) to endure all things but can only resolve to endure, be stoic, and cross the fingers that all will be well. Not so with the believer.

The believer’s patience is grounded in the promises of God. For one, the believer knows that affliction is temporary and will curiously work out for the good (2 Cor. 1:4; 7:6, 1 Pet. 3:4). For another, a Christian’s suffering is sure to pass leaving confidence that there will be good spiritual fruit, particularly in their relationship with the Lord (Heb. 12:11; Ps. 119:75).The proof is not so much in the pudding as it is in the eating.

Patience, says á Brakel, is the best evidence one has of genuine faith, both to themselves and to their neighbor. “Consider that the way to heaven is the way of affliction, and that we cannot walk upon this way except by way of patience.”

The one thing biblical theology is sure of is, “The Triune God produces all things in creation and new creation by his Word and Spirit.” The puzzler is how the call to faith has not achieved universal results. The outcome is in God’s hands, says Bavinck, which is not to say salvation is random or exclusivist. Far from it. The Gospel is delivered to sinners, not the ‘elect’ or ‘reprobate.’ When a person acknowledges the mystery of God’s will in salvation they gain insight into God’s glory. And like all spiritual knowledge, it must be given of God.

Soteriology has as many intellectual problems as the doctrines of the Trinity and two-natures of Christ. Regeneration proceeds faith is the correct explanation, but there are ethical considerations. For one, overemphasis on regeneration can lead people to feel uncertain about their faith. Infant baptism, for another, could be a presumption if personal faith takes priority. Arminian based views assuming that some grace is given to motivate the human will, or that the will can ascent to faith in God, ultimately deem the concept or regeneration unnecessary. This is a dangerous position in the modern era, says Bavinck, where concepts of moral empowerment gradually evolve from improved human character assume the meaning of ‘renewal’ and ‘rebirth.’ It sounds appealing, but it reduces God’s glory and sovereignty into the elephant in the room.

These theological problems are not intellectual fodder but go directly to faith as the principle of renewed life. For Bavinck, such theological assumptions affect the life of faith, and the quality of that life in direct, intimate communion with God in the Spirit. The mystery of God’s prerogative in salvation is as sticky as freedom, liberty and love. God’s grace is irresistible but is not coercive. It frees from the power of sin and it is created in love.

Down is Not Out

Self-denial is the Christian’s most active, most visible demonstration of faith. It comes more or less naturally, says á Brakel, from love to God and contentment in the knowledge and experience of His will. Perhaps there is no better interpretation of James 2:18, the thorniest verse in the NT, than a long steady life of self-denial. Self-denial is a grace given by God; it forms the will in the new life of the believer. God gives this grace according to sanctification. Self-denial is a high human virtue but it is not natural, that is to say, it is not necessarily a universal. There can be occasional acts of self-denial, but only the regenerate believer has this grace as a genuine disposition. Self-denial is not a random act of kindness that is able to outweigh a lifetime of selfishness.

Aesthetics or Ascetics?

Self-denial has a checkered past. Many early Christians took self-denial as an austere life in extreme conditions, though many famous Greek philosophers did similar things.* The believer, with a new love for God, finds something superior in the will of God above all else they could ever desire.** The objective is not simply to deprive one’s self of basic needs, or repress desire altogether; the object is God’s glory and the welfare of our neighbors. God’s glory, His real presence and communion in the renewed heart is simply incomparable with the beauties of the world. And putting the welfare of one’s neighbor first is golden link between Old and New Testament religion which can’t be beat. There are many benefits to self-denial ranging from debt-management to time management, allof which add to personal freedom. But there is nothing greater than experiencing real communion with God.

Above all, says á Brakel, God rewards such service to an infinite degree. “If we renounce our honor, He will give grace and glory (Psa. 84:12). If we deny possessions, the Lord will be our abundant gold… He will not permit all that we relinquish out of love for Him and for His Name to be unrequited. “He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it” (Matt. 10:39).

___

* For example: Pythagoras lived in a cave for a year just to think about math.

** Á Brakel does not clearly elaborate on what he means by “the will of God” but he is referring to God’s holiness, justice (summarized in the Decalogue) providence, or ‘secret will’ and belief in Christ’s atoning sacrifice. See James Ussher’s Body of Divinity on God’s will as a possible source for á Brakel’s treatment.

Satisfy my Soul

Contentment, says á Brakel, is not in the having of stuff; it comes from fulfilled desire. It has a wide and far reaching spectrum in experience and satisfaction. Some need to climb Everest while others are just as happy to golf. Yet contentment is rarely found in the fulfillment of long term or short term goals (there are always more). Conversely it’s not produced from restraint or refraining from desire –that’s merely suppression. Contentment is a disposition of the soul; the intellect, will, and affections together resting in quiet confidence, joyfully and with gratitude (in present circumstances), trusting that the Lord will cause the present and the future to turn out to their advantage.

Every Little Action

A believer’s desires should exclude evil, tend to those that are good and focuses enjoyment on the good itself. All too often original/actual sin clouds the judgment and pushes self-fulfillment beyond attainable means tending to depression. And believers have a unique emotional experience of this. In the course of sanctification, believers find contentment in the world difficult as their desires gravitate toward communion with God –something that can never be satisfied in this life.

Finding contentment is difficult but not impossible. Á Brakel’s recipe is to examine one’s circumstances either as good or something to be delivered from, looking to God for grace, mercy and peace. The foundation of contentment is God’s will, revealed in Jesus Christ which saves from the false idea of blind fate. This requires strong faith and prayer. Above all circumstances light and heavy, following after the perfect example of Christ (Matt. 26:39; John 6:38), “the love toward God’s good pleasure has the upper hand.”

The theoretical knowledge of a doctor is doubtlessly very important, but his worth and the worth of his science only comes into its own when he heals people. Similarly, theology must prescribe medicine for the ailments of the soul. It must be able to say how and in what way we can be freed from our guilt, reconciled to God, attain to patience and hope amidst life’s tribulations, and find reason to sing praises in the face of death. AÂ theology that does not concern itself with these things and only dedicates itself to critical and historical studies is not worthy of the name theology. And a theologian who is acquianted with all the latest issues of science but who stands speechless at a sickbed and knows no answer to the questions of the lost sinner’s heart isn’t worthy of his title and office.

After studying the sacrifices of the Old Testament one might wonder if more ink has been spilled on the topic than blood. Christ’s sacrifice was puzzled over from Irenaeus to Anselm, and especially with the latter, no one followed without revision. The great theme behind the OT sacrifices is mercy. The sacrifices did not cover the whole of life, says Bavinck, they only served as a reminder of sin and typologically pointed to another, better sacrifice. How so? The Prophets (and those speaking in a prophetic spirit) teach the spiritual nature of sacrifice (1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6) and promise the Messiah (Ps. 110; Jer. 23:6). Prophetic testimony, in the estimation of the New Testament, prescribes the Messiah’s human nature, humiliation, sufferings, and the priesthood in Christ’s sacrifice: the Old Covenant is fulfilled in him.

The New Testament’s view of Christ’s humiliation is multifaceted. He is, “the law and the gospel in his own person.” Christ is the message himself, “not inspiration, but incarnation.” God didn’t speak to Christ as with Moses, says Bavinck, but spoke through him. Christ paid a ransom as the paschal lamb; he was the means of the expiation of sin, a sacrifice of atonement, and the ‘curse’ which removed the curse of the law. Supposing Christ’s active and passive obedience to God in his humiliation, together with the testimonies of the law and gospel uniting in his person, it stands to reason that his substitutionary life and death produced complete redemption: thus unifying the Church body to the head. It has. But not without a wrinkle.

There is a long standing tradition in Christian theology that pitches the law against the gospel as bi-polar opposites. The God of love is virtually wholly other next to the God of justice. These Marconian views have always been rejected for splitting the unifying concept of salvation from sin and from the punishment of sin via the law. Modern theology’s divinization of humans (Hegel) and the attaining the God-consciousness of Christ (Schleiermacher) is not far off, insisting that Christ’s obedience and faithfulness maintained perfect communion with God and not by vicarious atonement. When the law and gospel are split religious certainty maintained by distinction is lost in the muddle of pantheism. Accordingly, the “not-yet-being” of humanity progresses toward becoming divine with the Father’s ‘automatic’ forgiveness for those who attempt (with utter seriousness) to live up to the moral ideals of religion. Bavinck’s response is simply magnificent:

“If sin does not deserve punishment, there is no grace either. In fact, there is no need for forgiveness at all. God wills that we love him and his law, even apart from sin, as the norm of our lives.”

There are many views concerning Christ’s testimony, person, and work. Most of them have a core of truth, unless they marginalize the value of the incarnation and the atonement. And we must be weary, Bavinck would say, of those who assume the filthy rags of human righteousness can be changed for a garment of light on extended credit.

 

There is a deep human need for redemption from sin and misery. Writing at the time of the industrial revolution, Bavinck notes that one of the greatest riddles of life is that it becomes shallow for all the cultural benefits streaming from civilization. The same can be said in the wake of a global recession. This is why there has always been religion. The needs of the human heart are greater than what culture can provide. It’s what sent Alexander the Great across Persia and subprime lenders on a similar campaign. All to say there is a wide array of civil and natural evils in the world which science and technology simply cannot hope to solve. As a general starting point, its safe to say that all ancient cultures and primitive peoples addressed the ‘problem of evil’ and the ‘possibility of redemption’ from evil and its affects through keeping laws, ‘divine’ commandments, golden rules and ratios, and above all: sacrifice.

 

Sacrifice is a universal phenomenon in religions of the world. Sacrifice is a religious act, “in which a person offers a material gift to the deity and destroys it in the service of that deity in order to secure that deity’s favor.” There are plenty of theories as to the origin and meaning of sacrifices. One theory explains that gifts offered to the gods were expiation. A second theory explains sacrifices were tokens of reverence and submission. The mystical-sacrificial theory (sacramental) is closer to primitive beliefs: the meat (and blood) of the sacrifice is ingested filling the participant with the moral and physical properties of the victim, simultaneously bringing in divine favor. There are millions of rites and customs to this effect; the ancient Aztecs wore the skins of their human victims, the Hebrews sprinkled lamb’s blood on the doorposts to save from destruction. The point is, says Bavinck, the idea of sacrifice is the link between religion and the hope for successful cultural activity.

 

Turing to the Scriptural data raises more questions about the origin of sacrifice than it does solutions. Were there sacrifices prior to the fall? Some like Augustine believe there were and Bavinck agrees. Yet sin changed the nature of sacrifice to the degree that it added an expiatory dimension previously unknown. Further, before being entirely corrupted, sin also established an impression that gratitude and reverence cannot be achieved without atoning for guilt and fear. Somewhere in its long history there arose a special ‘priest-class’ of persons designated to mediate between the people and the deity. As we will see, this special development will ultimately rest in the person and work of Christ who alone fulfilled universal ritual atonement. Now that’s progress.

The Character of Communion in á Brakel
Á Brakel’s approach to fellowship with Christ is notably mystical. It’s the manner’ or application that is less so, but no less intimate (de Reuver). He tends to use much of the language from the Song of Songs to describe the believer’s spiritual union with Christ often in the vein of Bernard. Faith is the spring of fellowship with Christ; faith produces emotions and communion with Christ in friendship but emotion itself is not the source of faith. Yet faith produces and reciprocates love to God who is ‘eternal love’ himself. Love is mediated to the believer through Christ; it produces friendship, pardon and peace with God. Given the turmoil and jarring transitions of life communion can be interrupted, but it is never lost. For á Brakel the intensity and fervor of Christian life should grow warmer in anticipation of the full “complete unmediated union with God” reserved in the life to come.

The Fast Tract of Spiritual Life
The soul is never more connected to God in all its parts (intellect, passions, will, and body) than in prayer. Prayer is objective and subjective. The believer has a subjective view of her needs for grace, mercy, as well as the need for communion and connection with God. The object of prayer is God; through perseverance God and the believer’s soul come into clear focus. God’s mercy, omnipotence, and holy majesty are held in the humble petitioner’s view as glorious: God is glorified hearing and helping the supplicant, “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is overwhelmed, and poureth out his complaint before the Lord” (Psa. 102:1). Suppose a believer is overwhelmed with grief, guilt, even void of desire. What should they do? Appealing again to Psalm 102 (v.17), á Brakel suggests they pray be it ever so feeble or meek; speak softly even. Perseverance in prayer causes one to “dwell longer in the presence of God” and the soul remains in a holy disposition for the time well spent.

When facing extenuating circumstances of thanksgiving or special season of need, fasting is an excellent “God-focused” exercise. It may sound quaint, but is it? Fasting is a special time reserved for finding God. It was commanded in the Old Testament and practiced in the New ““so it should not be shunned for fashion and disuse. à Brakel’s recipe for fasting is to remove all distraction, food, entertainment, refrain from work (specific to vocation) and sleep, for a twenty-four hour period. This is not a good idea for nursing mothers and those with disabilities, but it can be practiced according to one’s personal circumstances. This is not, says à Brakel, a time for laziness: fasting is a spiritual exercise that demands the whole person. The benefits are sincere. God’s light shines through into the heart of faith, there is strength to fight sin and temptation, and there is comfort from the Lord. The goal of fasting is dependence on God through prayer in a uniquely difficult season. The fruit of fasting is spiritual clarity which is not so much a mystical state as it is a seeking God’s purpose in personal struggles. In a word, there is much sweetness in it. It is not for everyday, but is there for drawing near to the Lord.

The Old Testament anticipated the Messiah’s anointing of the Holy Spirit would be very unique (Isa. 61:1). Christ received the Spirit at baptism (without measure); the Spirit led him into the wilderness; gave him powers over spiritual authorities; and glorified his resurrected body (Rom. 1:4). He ascended into heaven, “to manifest himself to his own as life-giving Spirit who is the Spirit and who works by the Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:17-19).” This goes to the virgin birth, says Bavinck, for it is not miracle enough to be born of a virgin: it doesn’t prove sinlessness. Christ is not a product of humankind, but sent to humankind. He remained exempt from original sin by the conception of the Spirit, so he was truly the Son of the Father and not a natural descendant from Adam. The great riddle of the Testaments, the Messiah is both David’s son and lord, is solved in Joseph. Joseph is civilly and legally Jesus’ father who was able to contribute the right and titles of David’s pedigree. The conception by the Holy Spirit helps to explain Christ’s sinlessness. But the real beauty is that it was the only way, “in which he who already existed as a person and was appointed head of a new covenant could now also be born in a human way … and remain who he is: the Christ, Son of the Most High” (Polanus).

Bavinck is very adverse to any view remotely connected to pantheism. He sees it in the wings of the modernist movements that make any division between the perfect unity of Christ’s natures, and the unity between the Churches confessions and Pauline theology. Scripture does not exactly speak the language of “later theology” but Pauline Christology is certainly the mainline to the foundational statements of John 1. At the base of pantheism is Gnostic or other similar views* with a dualism pitching spiritual and natural against one another. The vast distinctions are virtually endless and equally subtle. Point is, says Bavinck, you can never have a true unity between human and divine (or scripture and theology) if God is not allowed to become truly human. Pantheism preaches that you have to lose yourself, lose your identity, and dissolve into “the oneness of the All.” Its incarnation in reverse: the divine (Logos) cannot completely fill one human being. Ergo the whole human race is the Christ. Divinity is humanity viewed from above, in this case, and becoming God is something that everyone potentially evolves into. What about sin? It’s a necessity due to the deficiency of matter and time. Hence the shift in emphasis on Christ’s divinity, not deity; Christ’s unity in God then is reinterpreted and understood in a moral sense of fulfilling God’s will and teaching others. Bavinck says it amounts to prototypical humanity and an ectype of divinity: a mere appearance and not the reality Scripture posits.

For Bavinck and the Reformed, this is all works itself into the language of self-improvement, salvation through education and social-redemption. Not to discount any good coming from it but as a view of salvation the divine and human never really connect. It’s like treating God as a policeman in your rearview mirror; you see him pass by and slow down, muttering, ‘yeah, yeah, I see you,’ and then off you go. The scriptural idea of redemption is completely undermined. But the Lord knows those who are his (2 Tim. 2:19). Assuming we know who he is, says Bavinck, we can proceed next to understand what he does.**
___
* Cf. Apollonarianism, Arianism, Cabbalism, Marcionianism, Neo-Platonism, Nestorianism – through to Hegel, Kant, and Schleiermacher: Bavinck’s command of the literature is masterful.
** Be sure to catch our twin series on Wilhelmus á Brakel as a devotionally driven supplement to the rigors of dogmatic inquiry. It can also be viewed here .

My friends over at Reformation Heritage Books have encouraged me to start reading Wilhelmus á Brakel (1633-1711) for devotional reading along side Scripture, and Bavinck’s dogmatics. They are doing more than trying to make me Dutch (although Muntendrop might just do it). Á Brakel’s multi-volume The Christian’s Reasonable Service (1999) is another fine translation and reprint of a Dutch Reformed classic that’s been hidden away since the early 18th century. Reformation Heritage Books and Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary put their best efforts forward in a program and materials that emphasize scholarship and preaching. The sum of all goes to the practical (spiritual) application for the church: strong faith, strong spiritual life. And the results go from strength to strength.Á Brakel’s Service reads like a dogmatic, but is very pastoral in tone and emphasis, with the goal of promoting the spiritual life of the church in close communion with God. The question is; how can such an older work be played out in the post-everything world of ours?

The answer is: follow á Brakel. There is something there. Arie de Reuver’s book Sweet Communion, Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages through the Futher Reformation (Baker: 2007) has a great chapter on á Brakel’s spirituality. When á Brakel would walk to school for the week, his father Theodorus would lead him to the edge of the road and pray for his journey until he was out of sight. Wilhelmus himself would often pray the whole day’s walk. This caught my attention as especially familiar and one in which I personally identify with. What’s more, á Brakel’s spirituality and emphasis on piety is as perfect companion to Bavinck as Muntendrop is to Hagelslag .

Our bi-weekly series officially kicks off friday, June 5, and we may even include á Brakel giveaway somewhere in the course of the series.