When it comes to natural theology, one must distinguish between different models within the broader project or discipline. As recent scholarship has noted, at least two main models exist within the Christian tradition: pre-dogmatic and dogmatic models of natural theology (Sudduth). On the one hand, a pre-dogmatic model of natural theology offers rational argumentation as a foundation for the faith or theological enterprise (e.g., Descartes, J.A. Turretin, Butler, Paley). On the other hand, a dogmatic model of natural theology operates within the theological enterprise, offering exposition or defense of the truths of faith with the resources of redeemed reason.
Herman Bavinck discerned this important distinction, offering dogmatic insights to contemporary theologians and Christian philosophers today. Yet, Bavinck has not been coherently understood until recently. Some have used Bavinck to posit a Reformed objection to natural theology (Plantinga, Wolterstorff), while others have not sufficiently accounted for his doctrinal development (Bolt, Sytsma, Muller). Especially since the work of James Eglinton, the Edinburgh school of interpretation has offered a new reading of Bavinck along the lines of the organic motif. Now, theology stands poised to listen attentively to Bavinck and gain from his insights into many contemporary issues. Natural theology functions like a bridge discipline between philosophy and theology. As such, it is in theory what apologetics, ethics, and psychology are in practice, among other things.
This paper will sketch the key dogmatic insights and contours of Bavinck’s approach to natural theology (RD 1:322, 2:77-78, Christelijke wereldbeschouwing, Christelijke wetenschap, Wijsbegeerte der openbaring). First, with the organic motif, Bavinck maintains the unity of general and special revelation. Second, because of his doctrine of revelation, Bavinck distinguishes between general revelation and natural theology at every point. Third, in light of his intellectual context, Bavinck rejects the pre-dogmatic model in favor of an affirmation and exposition of a dogmatic model of natural theology. Particularly important will be examining Bavinck’s historical context after Vatican I, Aeterni Patris, and Leonine Thomism. Bavinck believed the Reformed doctrine of natural theology was vital for Christian theology in his day, and I hope to show how it still affords theologians dogmatic purchase today.