Established scholarship regards ancient Christian exegetical strategies as a vital prerequisite to theological conclusions integral to Nicene trinitarian dogma (Yeago 1994). More recent scholarship analyzes and evaluates the relation of Scripture and metaphysics (Levering 2004, Levering 2010, Rowe 2010, Carter 2018, Duby 2019, Carter 2021). Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) contributes to this ongoing, contemporary conversation, especially in his dogmatic approach to natural theology.
Since the Edinburgh school of interpretation offers a new, coherent reading of Bavinck, theology stands poised to listen attentively and benefit from Bavinck’s insights (Eglinton 2012, Mattson 2012, Brock 2020, Sutanto 2020, Pass 2020, Xu 2022, Clausing 2023, etc.). Recently, critical monographs extend Bavinck’s insights into contemporary theology (e.g., Sutanto 2024). In older Bavinck studies, the relation between nature and Scripture, reason and revelation, remains underdeveloped and requires enrichment along the lines of this new reading (Heideman 1963, Bolt 2010, 2011, Systma 2011, Bolt 2013.1, 2013.2, Vos 2015, 2016). Given the recent surge of Bavinck translations and research, Anglophone Bavinck studies demands and deserves closer attention to precisely these matters, perhaps especially in light of 1,700 years since Nicaea.
This paper will sketch the contours of Bavinck’s theological method as it relates to the sources and structure of his dogmatic project. Importantly, Bavinck identifies three sources: Scripture, church confession, and Christian consciousness (RD 1:84). However, his addresses have not been sufficiently taken into consideration (e.g., Het voor en tegen van een dogmatish systeem 1881, De wetenschap der H. Godgeleerdheid 1883). As a case study, this paper will compare and contrast the method of Bavinck with that of Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638). For, on the one hand, in his critical comments on natural theology Bavinck distinguished himself from Alsted (RD 2:78n66, cf. 1:305–6). Yet, at the same time, Bavinck structurally depends upon Alsted in formulating his own Christian and Reformed dogmatics (RD 1:88, cf. Christelijke wereldbeschouwing 57).
As he critically receives and develops his own Reformed tradition, Bavinck’s approach to natural theology represents on opportunity to reconsider this relation for contemporary theology. The Reformed doctrine of natural theology was vital for Christian theology in his day. Yet, importantly, natural theology must be formally distinguished from metaphysics. As such, metaphysics does not furnish material content for Christian theology as an adjunct to Scripture. Therefore, Bavinck’s theological method yields a fruitful formulation of the relation of Scripture and metaphysics in the construction of a dogmatic system.