Thread: Herman Bavinck Avatar Request

I'd like to see a Bavinck avatar. Any chance?

Bavinck would not believe in chance.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Bavinck would not believe in chance.

Good catch, grasshopper. you pass the test.

But because he understood creation and providence as the foundation for human experience, he might have felt free to use that language for its existential import. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said,

Now by chance a priest was going down that road..." (Luke 10:31)

Wonder why Jesus felt comfortable talking that way?

Here's one:



Are you asking for an avatar or a smilie?

If you want an avatar, find a public domain image and crop it to size (Max 150 X 150) and either upload it to your profile or link it from a photo-host.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

Here's one:



Are you asking for an avatar or a smilie?

If you want an avatar, find a public domain image and crop it to size (Max 150 X 150) and either upload it to your profile or link it from a photo-host.

Vic,

You sort of look like a modern day Bavinck, without the beard.

dude awesome! I can't decide who I like more, Herman Bavinck, or John Murray! I have Reformed Dogmatics and the Collected Writings right next to each other on my bookshelf. It's practically idolatry!

Thanks again!
(unless you don't drink). Then cheers w/ rootbeer.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Vic,

You sort of look like a modern day Bavinck, without the beard.

Here's me with a beard, circa 1977:

Originally Posted by mark

dude awesome! I can't decide who I like more, Herman Bavinck, or John Murray! I have Reformed Dogmatics and the Collected Writings right next to each other on my bookshelf. It's practically idolatry!

Thanks again!
(unless you don't drink). Then cheers w/ rootbeer.

I only drink homebrew.

I'm definitely seeing more Bavinck in the 2008 Vic than the 1977 Vic.

Originally Posted by mark

Good catch, grasshopper. you pass the test.

But because he understood creation and providence as the foundation for human experience, he might have felt free to use that language for its existential import. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said,

Now by chance a priest was going down that road..." (Luke 10:31)

Wonder why Jesus felt comfortable talking that way?

This is really interesting to me. I was reading Acts yesterday, and, by chance, came across the same word (in the ESV).

The English word occurs 7 times in the AV, but has two different meanings. Jesus is using the one that many Reformed Christians would consider offensive:

suntuci: occurrence, happening, incident; kata. suntuci,an by chance, by coincidence.

What is great though is that the English Refugees in Geneva were not going to use the term. Look at the extent to which the Geneva Bible goes to avoid using the term:

Nowe so it fell out, that there came downe a certaine Priest that same way, and when he sawe him, he passed by on the other side.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

Originally Posted by mark

Good catch, grasshopper. you pass the test.

But because he understood creation and providence as the foundation for human experience, he might have felt free to use that language for its existential import. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said,

Now by chance a priest was going down that road..." (Luke 10:31)

Wonder why Jesus felt comfortable talking that way?

This is really interesting to me. I was reading Acts yesterday, and, by chance, came across the same word (in the ESV).

The English word occurs 7 times in the AV, but has two different meanings. Jesus is using the one that many Reformed Christians would consider offensive:

suntuci: occurrence, happening, incident; kata. suntuci,an by chance, by coincidence.

What is great though is that the English Refugees in Geneva were not going to use the term. Look at the extent to which the Geneva Bible goes to avoid using the term:

Nowe so it fell out, that there came downe a certaine Priest that same way, and when he sawe him, he passed by on the other side.

Yes, I too find this very interesting. I reformed pastor once preached on this text and said we should feel free to talk this way about our life events because the Bible allows for this language.

The difference, he said, was that Christians shouldn't talk about "Chance" the way the Greeks did. Instead, creation and providence are (as I wrote earlier) the foundation of human freedom. So, in that context of the biblical worldview--and not the Greek one-- we can talk about chance.

waddyathink?