Bavinck: Dogmatics vs Ethis

[Stope]

Bavinck taught Ethics and also taught Dogmatics. What is the difference in his context between those two terms (I know that his Ethics material was just recently discovered so we don't have first hand account of the content of his Ethics yet)

Also, has anyone actually read all of Bavinks 4 vols of Dogmatics? Thoughts? How compare against Calvin's Institutes?

 

[Stope]

I know that his Ethics material was just recently discovered

O maybe Im wrong i just saw this here:
Reformed Ethics (Baker Academic, 2018–). In 2010, Dirk van Keulen announced the discovery of a lengthy manuscript of a previously unknown Bavinck title on ethics, Gereformeerde Ethiek. The work, “a virtually unpublished monograph,” was hand-written in several notebooks. It has since been transcribed in Dutch, and the long work of English translation has commenced. By 2012, project editor John Bolt made a discovery: “the Bavinck manuscript was over 1,100 pages instead of the 560 total that we were working with . . . Instead of a one-volume work, we are now projecting a three-volume work,” published through Baker Academic, he announced. “It is our goal to have the translated and edited volume one in the hands of the publisher by January 2017.” Bolt tells hermanbavinck.org an official publish date has not been set, but that the following two volumes would be finished and published later, simultaneously. [Updated: Feb. 25, 2016]

 

[Guido's Brother]

As to the distinction between dogmatics and ethics, dogmatics is the branch of theology that outlines what we believe, whereas ethics focuses on the Christian life (how we live according to God's law).

I haven't read Bavinck front to back (just vol. 1 and portions of the other three). Truthfully, I haven't read the Institutes yet from front to back either (working on it). But I think I'm familiar enough with both to comment. Calvin was not writing a systematic theology in the sense that we understand it today. The Institutes was a book to help people prepare to read and understand the Bible. Bavinck's RD is more like a systematic theology, progressing through all the typical topics. Bavinck was written mainly for theologians and budding theologians (seminary students). Because he wrote later, Bavinck is also interacting with theologians of the 19th century, something Calvin obviously couldn't do. Also, because he writes later, Bavinck is also working within the framework of the Reformed confessions, particularly the Three Forms of Unity. He often referred to the TFU and was committed to these confessions. You'll also find that Bavinck's covenant theology is much more developed than Calvin's, simply because so much water has been under the bridge between the two.

 

[RamistThomist]

Calvin's is a running commentary loosely framed around the structure of the Apostle's Creed.

Bavinck's is a strict systematics/dogmatics text. He is dealing with the main loci of theology.

I've read through Calvin three times (audio one time; I will email you on specifics, Stope).

Calvin--pros

1. It's a foundational document for modern Western thought.
2. He's surprisingly easy to read.

Calvin--cons

1. Sometimes he is way too wordy.
2. Even though the structure is simple, because of its length it is easy to lose track of the main argument and transition points.

Bavinck. Pros

1. He is reflecting upon the entire heritage of Christian thought.
2. He gives you solid conclusions but he avoids easy answers.

Bavinck--cons

1. Volume one is hard. It's important and one of the best pieces on epistemology ever written, but you better know your European philosophy.

 

[Stope]

As to the distinction between dogmatics and ethics, dogmatics is the branch of theology that outlines what we believe, whereas ethics focuses on the Christian life (how we live according to God's law).

I haven't read Bavinck front to back (just vol. 1 and portions of the other three). Truthfully, I haven't read the Institutes yet from front to back either (working on it). But I think I'm familiar enough with both to comment. Calvin was not writing a systematic theology in the sense that we understand it today. The Institutes was a book to help people prepare to read and understand the Bible. Bavinck's RD is more like a systematic theology, progressing through all the typical topics. Bavinck was written mainly for theologians and budding theologians (seminary students). Because he wrote later, Bavinck is also interacting with theologians of the 19th century, something Calvin obviously couldn't do. Also, because he writes later, Bavinck is also working within the framework of the Reformed confessions, particularly the Three Forms of Unity. He often referred to the TFU and was committed to these confessions. You'll also find that Bavinck's covenant theology is much more developed than Calvin's, simply because so much water has been under the bridge between the two.

Awesome, thank you for this!

Calvin's is a running commentary loosely framed around the structure of the Apostle's Creed.

Bavinck's is a strict systematics/dogmatics text. He is dealing with the main loci of theology.

I've read through Calvin three times (audio one time; I will email you on specifics, Stope).

Calvin--pros

1. It's a foundational document for modern Western thought.
2. He's surprisingly easy to read.

Calvin--cons

1. Sometimes he is way too wordy.
2. Even though the structure is simple, because of its length it is easy to lose track of the main argument and transition points.

Bavinck. Pros

1. He is reflecting upon the entire heritage of Christian thought.
2. He gives you solid conclusions but he avoids easy answers.

Bavinck--cons

1. Volume one is hard. It's important and one of the best pieces on epistemology ever written, but you better know your European philosophy.

---So so helpful (as always)