Scripture & Church

“The holy catholic church, whose sole head is Christ, has been begotten from the Word of God, in which also it continues, nor does it listen to any stranger.” (Ten Theses of Berne, 1528, as quoted in Daniel Hyde’sWelcome to a Reformed Church)

Luther: “The Scripture is the womb from which are born the divine truth and the church.”

More from Bavinck on “Knowing God” as it relates to Atheism

From the preceding (see previous post) we conclude that the knowledge of God, given in revelation, is so rich and profound that it can never by fully comprehended by any human being. God’s knowledge and power are not confined to the world nor exhaustively displayed there; a full revelation to creatures is not even possible inasmuch as the finite cannot grasp the infinite. “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27; cf. Deut. 29:29). In affirming this we are certainly not nullifying God’s knowability. God’s incomprehensibility, so far from canceling out God’s knowability, rather presupposes and affirms it. Though we can never know God in the full richness of his being, he is known to all people through his revelation in creation, the theater of his glory. According to Scripture the whole universe is a creation and hence also a revelation of God (Acts 17:23-24; Rom. 1:19-20). The world is never godless. Taken in an absolute sense, as the denial of an absolute power, atheism is almost unthinkable. In the final analysis, all people recognize a power that they venerate as God. Even agnosticism itself is proof of this point: like skepticism, it cannot maintain itself except with the aid of what it opposes. And precisely because the world cannot be conceived as godless, there are no atheistic and a-religious peoples. In the end there are no atheists; these is only argument about the nature of God. (155-156)

Herman Bavinck on “Knowing God” (Chapter 7)

All things are considered in light of God, subsumed under him, traced back to him as the starting point.

Mystery is the lifeblood of theological reflection. From the start of its labors, dogmatic theology is shrouded in mystery; it stands before God the incomprehensible One. This knowledge leads to adoration and worship; to know God is to live. Knowing God is possible for us because God is persona, exalted above the earth and yet in fellowship with human beings on earth. (147)

Such theology is never a dry and academic exercise; it is eminently practical and superlatively fruitful for life. The knowledge of God in Christ, after all, is life itself (Ps. 89:16; Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:34; John 17:3).

We dare speak of God for only one reason: he has revealed himself. (148)

Christian theology agrees that human knowledge of God is not exhaustive; we cannot know God in his essence… Therefore when we want to say what he is, we are only saying what, by comparison with all finite beings, he is not. He is ‘inexpressible. It is easier for us to say what he is not that what he is.’ (quote from Augustine) (149-150)

Reformed theology in its aversion to all idolatry has insisted that God infinitely surpasses our understanding, imagination, and language. Calvin writes that we are toying with idle speculations when we pose the question: What is God? For us it is enough to inquire: “What is his nature and what is consistent with his nature?” (quoted from Calvin’s Institutes, I.ii.2; I.v.9, Battles Edition) (151-152)

Schleiermacher stated that God is the “whence” of our existence; and as such an absolute causality, he cannot be the object of our knowing but only the content of the feeling of absolute dependence. (152, interesting how much the modern church believes this!)

…agnosticism is in fact the death of theology…

God-knowledge is anthropomorphic; it is accommodated to our necessary creaturely limitation. (153)

But though God is thus beyond our full comprehension and description, we do confess to having the knowledge of God. This knowledge is analogical and the gift of revelation. We know God through his works and in his relation to us, his creatures. This truth is beyond our comprehension; it is a mystery but not self-contradictory. Rather, it reflects the classic distinction Christian theology has always made between negative (apophatic) and positive (cataphatic) theology. (154)

Augustine: “We are speaking of God. Is it any wonder if you do not comprehend? For if you comprehend, it is not God you comprehend. Let is be a pious confession of ignorance rather than a rash profession of knowledge. To attain some slight knowledge of God is a great blessing; to comprehend him, however, is totally impossible.”

Hilary: “The perfection of learning is to know God in such a way that, though you realize he is not unknowable, yet you know him as indescribable.”

Christian theology teaches that our knowledge of God is analogical. It is a knowledge of a being who is unknowable in himself, yet able to make something of himself known in the being he created…It is completely incomprehensible to us how God can reveal himself and to some extent make himself known in created beings: eternity in time, immensity in space, infinity in the finite, immutability in change, being in becoming, the all, as it were, in that which is nothing. This mystery cannot be comprehended; it can only be gratefully acknowledged and received in faith. (154-155)

What it all comes down to is whether God has willed and found a way to reveal himself in the domain of creatures….Thanks to revelation, we have true knowledge of God, knowledge that is relative and finite rather than comprehensive. Incomprehensibility does not imply agnosticism but an ingredient of the Christian claim to have received by revelation a specific, limited, yet well-defined and true knowledge of God. (155)

Resurrecting a Previous Quote in Light of Hebrews 3

We must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly affection… We must uphold a familar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality, we must delight in each other, make others condition our own, rejoice together, mourn together, labour and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body, so shall we keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; the Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us.
—John Winthrop

Hebrews 3:13 and “Exhorting” One Another

We talked yesterday about how essential it is for the covenant community (visible church) to be characterized by mutual exhortation. I want to provide some further help with respect to the meaning of the imperative “exhort one another” in the hope that you will continue to prayerfully apply this great text. Please remember that in the context the author urges them to “exhort one another” as an antidote to the very real danger that some may “harden” and “fall away”. Praise God for this wonderful means!

Consider the following material from Peter O’Brien’s very fine commentary on Hebrews (3:13):

“The author now balances his warning with a positive admonition of his listeners to ‘keep on exhorting’ one another. To make sure that an evil heart of unbelief does not appear in any one of them, the community as a whole as well as each member within it is to be vigilant and constant in their care for others by mutual exhortation.

The strong adversative but, which begins v. 13 and sets the positive exhortation over against the warning of v. 12, suggests that the author believes that an important remedy to the danger of a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God is mutual admonition. In effect, he urges the congregation to do for its members what he himself is doing for them in his discourse: Brothers and sisters, I urge (parakaleo) you to bear with my word of exhortation (paraklesis) (13:22). Moreover, given the wide semantic range of the verb parakaleo, their mutual exhortation will include warning and reproof as well as encouragement and comfort. Not surprisingly, the paranetic [applicatory] material in Hebrews itself shows that the author has deliberately juxtaposed warnings and encouragements.”

O’Brien lists several possible translations (largely depending on the context) for “exhort” (parakaleo, Heb. 3:13; 6:18; 10:25; 12:5; 13:19, 22): “to urge strongly” and therefore “to exhort”; “to make a strong request”, and so “to appeal, entreat”; “to instil someone with courage and cheer”, and so “to comfort, encourage, cheer up”.

May the Lord grant to us that we may be found interacting with one another according to this pattern, that in so doing we may be built up and God may be glorified.

Bavinck: Prolegomena: Revelation: Special, Scriptural Revelation

“The purpose of all revelation–in creation, via prophets and apostles, in Scripture–is that human beings should know, serve, and honor God. Since, after the fall, revelation in nature and history is inadequate to that end, a gracious and transforming special revelation is needed. Special revelation is salvific revelation and is different from natural revelation in form and content. Certainly it is the same God who makes himself known to human beings, both in general and in special revelation, but whereas in general revelation God’s deity comes to the fore, in special revelation it it the Triune God who ever more clearly makes himself known in his personal distinctions.” (79)

“Revelation is not only a communication of life but also an announcement of truth; revelation yields doctrine. Revelatory word and deed belong together in God’s plan and acts of salvation.” (80)

“Finally, then, the purpose and goal of special revelation is God’s own trinitarian glory, his delight in himself.  The aim of revelation is to re-create humanity after the image of God, to establish the kingdom of God on earth, to redeem the world from the power of sin, and thus to glorify the name of the Lord in all his creatures. With the contemplation of Christ’s work, his Word is also completed (Heb. 1:1-4); strictly speaking, we look for no further revelation.” (80)

“God redeems and reveals; we know, understand, and believe. Revelation and religion are distinct but not separable. Revelation is possible only if God has a personal existence distinct from the world and possesses the will and power to reveal himself in deeds and words. God addresses with his speech, he communicates his thoughts to us analogous to the communication of one human to another, a father to his child, a teacher to his or her pupil. Revelation thus places us under obligation to listen, to accept it and respond to it with a life consisting in knowing, serving, and loving God with all our minds and hearts. Revelation is a conscious and free act of a gracious and loving God who makes himself known to us so that we may accept the grace of God by faith in Christ or, in case of impenitence, receive a more severe judgment. He speaks to us to take us up into fellowship with him and make us partakers of his divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). God still speaks today; while special revelation in a sense belongs to the past, from day to day God continues in a special way to reveal himself to all who live under the gospel. The witness of the Spirit continues until the final manifestation of Christ the full effect of revelation in the history of humankind will be completed. The time of sowing will then be concluded in the time of harvest.” (81)

Bavinck: Prolegomena: Revelation: General Revelation

“What is unique and distinctive about Christianity is based on God’s special revelation in Scripture. The great theological debates in the church concerned the nature of the relationship between these two, especially the boundaries between the two kinds of revelation.” (68)

“The Reformers believed that the human mind was so darkened by sin that it could not rightly know and understand natural revelation either. God, therefore, needed to provide the glasses (Calvin) of Scripture to aid our ‘reading’ of natural revelation. Human beings also needed eyes of faith, provided by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, to see God in the works of his hands.” (68-69)

“All revelation–general and special–finally finds its fulfillment and meaning in Christ. God’s revelation in Scripture and in Christ provides the spectacles of faith that enable us to understand general revelation better, as well as a basis for encounters with non-Christians. In no way should the Christian faith be represented as otherworldly or anti-creation. Rather, grace and nature are united in the Christian faith, and general revelation links the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth–it joins creation and redemption together in one great eschatological cantata of praise. A religious life is woven into the very fabric of ordinary human experience. God is one and the same loving God in creation and redemption; grace restores nature.” (73)

Bavinck: Prolegomena: Revelation: The Idea of Revelation

“Revelation and religion stand or fall together; without revelation there is no religion.” (62)

“If we are to know him (God) he must come forward out of his hiddenness, in some way make himself perceivable, and hence reveal himself… all religion rests on revelation, on belief in a conscious, voluntary, intentional disclosure of God to human beings.” (63)

“We need revelation to know God and to understand ourselves and our situation before God in his world.” (63)

“We need faith to understand revelation.” (64)

“By giving reason the weight it did, deism legitimated the right of human beings to pronounce judgment on revelation; no truth of Christianity could add to what was known through reason, and human reason determined whether or not the content of revelation was true.” (64)

“The reality of religion depends on some form of revelation, and the very possibility of revelation as a communication from a personal God requires a theistic, supernaturalist worldview. A materialist worldview is diametrically opposed to all ideas of such revelation. A supernaturalist worldview affirms both creation and providence; since God created the world and by his providence still maintains and governs it, it he is absolutely elevated above the world and can use it in the manner it pleases him.” (66-7)

 

Bavinck: Prolegomena: Foundations of Dogmatic Theology: Religious Foundations (continued)

“What then is the origin of religion in human experience? Strictly speaking, societies without any religion are as abundant as societies without language; that is to say, there are none.” (59)

“But if God is real and religion is inevitable for us as human beings, then religion remains. It has, and it will.” (60)

“Religion cannot be understood without God, and to know him he must reveal himself to us. God is the great supposition of religion; his existence and revelation are the foundation upon which all human religion rests. Revelation is religion’s external principle of knowing. At the same time, there must exist in human beings a certain faculty or natural aptitude for religion. God does not do half a job. He creates not only the light but also the eye to see it. Corresponding to the external reality there is an internal organ of perception. The ear is designed for the world of sounds. The ‘logos’ implicit in creatures corresponds to the ‘logos’ in human beings and makes science possible. Beauty in nature finds a response in the human sense of beauty. Similarly, God’s revelation finds a response in the human expression of religious devotion and practice. One always finally encounters in humans a certain religious propensity that is called by various names: ‘the seed of religion,’ ‘a sense of divinity’ (Calvin)… There is always in humans a certain capacity for perceiving the divine to which scientific inquiry into religion has to return and in which it must end.” (61)

“Religion aims at nothing less than eternal blessedness in fellowship with God; science, morality, and art are limited to creatures and seek to enrich this life with the true, the good, and the beautiful.” (61)

“Religion exists because God is God and wants to be honored. To that end he reveals himself to us and makes us subjectively fit to know him. This means that, as Scripture teaches, human beings from the first moment of their existence were religious beings, created in God’s image.” (61)

“The three realities–God, revelation, religion–abide and are rooted in the very trinitarian being of God. It is the Father who reveals himself in the Son and by the Spirit. No one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son, by the Spirit, chooses to reveal him (Matt. 11:27; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor. 2:10).” (61)

Bavinck: Prolegomena: Foundations of Dogmatic Theology: Religious Foundations

“The Bible provides no general idea of religion but covenantally presents God’s revelation as its objective side and the fear of the Lord as the subjective side. Covenant is the basic term for the divine establishment that grounds Israel’s religion.” (53)

“The commandments must be internalized; God is to be revered and his revelation is to be believed and obeyed.” (53)

“In the New Testament, we encounter essentially the same view. Only now God give his (objective) revelation, not in a series of laws, but in the person of Christ.” (54)

“True godliness is never merely objective or external, and faith cannot be only personal or subjective; it requires an external ground. True religion claims the whole person, soul and body, the mind, the heart, and full strength; it requires that human beings serve God with a sincere faith, firm hope, and ardent love, with worship in spirit and in truth, with the sacrifices of a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Religion is a matter of knowing, loving, and serving God from the heart.” (54)

“We are absolutely dependent in such a manner that the denial of this dependence never makes us free, while the acknowledgement of it never reduces us to the status of a slave. On the contrary: in the conscious and voluntary acceptance of this dependence, we human beings arrive at our greatest freedom. We become human to the degree that we are children of God. Our dependence on God is not to be thought of in terms of sovereign power alone; the sovereign and holy God is our Father in heaven, the gracious, merciful, just, and holy One.” (55)

“Here too it must be said that the affections, feelings, are an important part of religion. A personal relation to God does not leave people cold and indifferent but moves them in the depths of their hearts. It arouses in them a strong feeling of delight or displeasure and generates a long series of affections: sense of guilt, sorrow, contrition, regret, sadness, joy, truth, peace, rest, etc… Affections give one’s religion warmth, inwardness, life and power, feelings that sharply contrast with the deadness of intellectualism and the coldness of moralism.” (58)