What Does Herman Bavinck Mean by Common Grace?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 15 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 6

  • @D.E.Metcalf
    @D.E.Metcalf 11 годин тому +2

    Exploring how Bavinck and neo-Calvinists integrate their theology of Common Grace with the theology of Antithesis is valuable, especially concerning political issues. Consider the "Grace In Common" episode titled "Against the World: The Antithesis" and Bavinck's work "The Kingdom of God, the Highest Good."
    19:22, regarding the claim of "no natural theology". He does not reject natural theology; instead, he offers a distinctly Reformed modification that does not rely on a speculative superadded gift of grace, similar to John Owen's arguments in "Theologoumena Pantodapa" (published as "Biblical Theology").

    • @wagraham
      @wagraham  9 годин тому +1

      Funnily, I did the first here: ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/antithesis-without-common-grace-makes-a-devil-out-of-our-neighbours/
      Second, I think you are right-ish. But Bavinck has a view of revelation that makes natural theology as it was practiced in his time seem less desirable since all theology is based on revelation. So it's not, IMO, solely due to his view of superadded grace.

    • @ahlumalubambo6096
      @ahlumalubambo6096 7 годин тому +1

      From which chapter of the book does Owen develop his natural theology?

    • @D.E.Metcalf
      @D.E.Metcalf 7 годин тому +1

      @ book 1 is titled “Natural Theology” and covers 9 chapters or 144 pages. I believe an updated translation should be coming out in the collected works of John Owen soon

    • @ahlumalubambo6096
      @ahlumalubambo6096 7 годин тому +1

      @@D.E.MetcalfThank you.

    • @D.E.Metcalf
      @D.E.Metcalf 6 годин тому

      @@wagraham I think there is a strand of natural theological method that was consistent with his mode of thinking (the Owen volume I listed). Van Til notes:
      “We turn now to the great work of Bavinck on Systematic theology, his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. We observe at once that he is much concerned to point out that there is only one principle, according to which we are to set forth man’s knowledge of God. He avows this in definite opposition to the scholastic position. There is a natural theology that is legitimate. It is such a theology as, standing upon the basis of faith and enlightened by Scripture, finds God in nature. But Rome’s natural theology, he argues, is illegitimate. Its natural theology is attained by the natural reason without reference to Scripture. Against such a position Bavinck firmly asserts that theology must be built upon the Scriptures only. There must be only one principle in theology. “Even if there is a knowledge of God through nature, this does not mean that there are two principles in dogmatics. Dogmatics has only one principium externum, namely, the Scriptures, and only one principium internum, namely, the believing reason.”46
      46 Op. cit., vol. 1, p. 74.
      Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Philadelphia, 1947).