After the eighteenth century, the pursuit of Reformed dogmatics languished in the Netherlands for many years. Reformed Orthodoxy had lost its majority position in the Dutch Reformed Church and systematic theology treatises were hardly published anymore. The seven-volume work of Bernardinus de Moor (1709-1780), a professor at Leiden university, is the last extensive systematic theology produced by Reformed Orthodoxy in the Netherlands. [2] More than half a century later, the theological climate at Leiden, as well as at other theological academies, had changed significantly. At this point in time, J. H. Scholten published his work about the doctrine of the Reformed Church—a decidedly modern work, but when compared to current modern theology, entirely old-fashioned. [3]
Among the Seceders, hardly anyone engaged in dogmatic studies. In any event, hardly any extensive works were written during the initial decades. Instead, the Seceders would use older Reformed writings as a benchmark.
Among the Dolerenden, [4] however, things were different. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was dogmatically inclined. It is a historical paradox that the modern work of Scholten in some measure precipitated the emergence of neo-reformed systematic theology. Kuyper had studied under Scholten and thus become thoroughly acquainted with the confessions. Kuyper later distanced himself from the modern interpretation of Scholten and began to focus more on older systematic theologies. Kuyper himself did not author a Reformed systematic theology, but he did teach systematic theology at the university he founded, the Free university of Amsterdam. His lectures were recorded and enhanced by his students and later published. Though they are not a word-for-word rendering of Kuyper’s lectures, their accuracy was such that Kuyper gave permission to publish them. [5]
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) contemporaneously emerged as a prominent figure among the Seceders. He initially studied at the theological school of the Secession movement, located in Kampen, but later also at the university of Leiden. In 1882, he became professor of systematic theology at Kampen. He subsequently took on the task of fostering unification with the Dolerenden. The result of his dogmatic labors is his Reformed Dogmatics, consisting of four volumes. [6]
When the Reformed Congregations (Gereformeerde Gemeenten) were organized in 1907, the study of systematic theology was already functioning at a high level in the Reformed churches. The works of Kuyper and Bavinck had already been published. The establishment of a theological school for the Reformed Congregations in Rotterdam would not occur until two decades later. Since 1927, G. H. Kersten (1882-1948) taught systematic theology at this institution. As was true for Kuyper and Bavinck, Kersten’s accomplishment in this area was primarily the result of teaching systematic theology. His Reformed Dogmatics Explained for the Congregations [7] was completed shortly before his death, the preface being dated October 1947.
Even though Kersten distanced himself theologically from the Reformed churches—perhaps even for that very reason—it is interesting to investigate to what extent he made use of the dogmatic labors of his older contemporaries, Kuyper and Bavinck. In this article, I will not attempt an exhaustive comparison but will limit myself to comparing these systematic theologians in a few sample areas. We can arrive at a reasonably accurate assessment by comparing the title used for his work, the arrangement of the doctrines, and two issues of specific importance to Kersten: predestination and regeneration.
The Title
As did Kuyper and Bavinck, Kersten preferred to use the term dogmatics. This may seem self-evident to us, and possibly to Kersten himself, but it was not all that obvious—and certainly not to someone like Kersten who specifically wanted to distinguish himself from Kuyper and focus upon old Reformed works. In fact, the term dogmatics is used rarely by the authors of these old Reformed works. Kersten, however, justified his choice of title by appealing to the nearly unknown Lucas Reinhart, professor at Aldorf, who, in 1659, for the first time made mention of synopsis theologiae dogmaticae. And yet, this term was not used by the theologians to which Kersten subscribed, such as Petrus van Mastricht and especially Johannes à Marck. Though the word dogmatics occurred in the title of some books, the use of the term “dogmatic theology” was not a natural consequence of this.
It was not until the nineteenth century that the term dogmatics was commonly used, and first of all in Germany. Heinrich Heppe, for example, published a work there entitled Reformierte Dogmatik. Kuyper and Bavinck followed suit in using this term. Bavinck justifies his choice by remarking that this term “has become so prominent, having put aside the primary term of theology and having manifested itself as an independent entity, that among theologians of various persuasions it has been embraced, and has not been cast aside by newer terms such as the doctrine of faith, the doctrine of redemption, Christian doctrine, etc.” [8]
Kersten aligned himself with Bavinck. Though he does not allude to this, upon reading the paragraph about the title in his Reformed Dogmatics, and comparing this with Bavinck’s remarks, one must conclude that Kersten simply provides a summary of Bavinck. [9]
This was not a departure from older Reformed theology, for also among these older works one will find the term “dogmatics” or “dogmatic theology,” albeit very rarely. The choice of the title, and what Kersten writes about it, does confirm, however, that he allowed himself to be guided by Bavinck without adding any of his own comments. A similar comparison with Kuyper’s Dogmatics is not possible, since his work lacks an introductory chapter.
It is a distinguishing characteristic of Kersten to refer to “the” Reformed Dogmatics (the article is omitted in the English version). That distinguishes him from Bavinck and Kuyper. Bavinck entitled his work “Reformed Dogmatics” without the definite article “the.” Kersten apparently assumed that Reformed divines had such a systematic theology, and in so doing, he ultimately leaves no room for divergent opinions. This means that he generally does not acknowledge any divergent views among the old Reformed divines. He frequently presents his selections as being the views of Reformed theologians. He only mentions divergent views of others if he considers them unequivocally erroneous. [10] In that respect, he is not a follower of Bavinck, who repeatedly places divergent views in juxtaposition to each other throughout his systematic theology. Kersten’s approach is probably motivated by his objective: he did not intend to give an overview of the history of dogma but rather to explain Reformed doctrine for the common church member. These church members could become confused if various views are placed side by side. Kersten has spared them the trouble of having to make a sound choice. He did so for the benefit of the churches. Regrettably, he did not delineate his methodology in his preface. [11]
The Orderly Arrangement
In his paragraph regarding the division of Reformed dogmatics, Kersten obviously chooses to use the theological method. This means that he begins with the doctrine of God. Following this, he sequentially deals with the doctrine of man, of Christ, of salvation, of the church, and of the last things.
Kuyper’s arrangement clearly deviates from this. [12] Kersten chooses to align himself with Bavinck. In his paragraph about the arrangement of subject matter, he again selects from and summarizes Bavinck’s writing. Kersten’s arrangement of subject matter can frequently be found among the old Reformed theologians as well. Though Kersten made use of Bavinck in justifying his arrangement, the question remains whether he fully grasped Bavinck’s remarks. His paragraph about the arrangement of systematic theology is not an example of expertise in this area. After having written about Calvin and his synthetic approach, and having distanced himself from Cocceius and his federal theology, Kersten posits that there are only two suitable methods for the pursuit of Reformed dogmatics: the Trinitarian and the theological methods. [13] Contrary to what Kersten posits, however, Calvin was not a trailblazer in arranging his subject matter according to a fundamental principle. Calvin could align himself with an organizational principle that had been in use for centuries already, a method that had been applied by the medieval theologian Peter lombard in his Sententiae. The major structure was derived from the apostolic confession, and was organized around four themes, the order of which could vary. Calvin’s order was God the Creator, God the Redeemer, the bestowal of grace, and the external means.
It is also incorrect to posit that Cocceius was the first to depart from this principle. The Heidelberg Catechism uses a different order, designated as analytical. It does not start with the knowledge of God as does Calvin with his synthetic method, but, after an introduction about the only comfort, with the sin of man. Kersten ignores this fact by positing that the confessions of the Dutch churches make use of the theological method. This is true for the Belgic Confession, but not for the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort.
When we examine their writings in terms of chapters, it is noteworthy that Kersten’s Dogmatics has far fewer chapters than Bavinck’s work. For the sake of comparison, the first three chapters of Kersten comprise 46 pages. Bavinck, however, devotes his entire first volume to the same subject matter (Prolegomena, Natural Knowledge of God, and God’s Word), totaling 22 chapters and 670 pages.
The chapter division in Kersten significantly resembles Bavinck’s. There is, however, an even greater resemblance to a doctrinal work with which Kersten was very familiar: A Specimen of Divine Truths by Abraham Hellenbroek—a text that Kersten used for catechetical instruction. [14] There are few differences. Although Hellenbroek’s work initially contained no chapter about the Counsel of Peace, the version that Kersten used did have a chapter about this, which had been extracted from the Kern der Christelijke Leer (The Essence of Christian Doctrine) by Aegidius Francken. Another difference is that Hellenbroek does not devote separate chapters to regeneration and a general overview of the ordo salutis. Finally, the location of the chapters dealing with providence and the Covenant of Works in Kersten differs from that in Hellenbroek’s Specimen of Divine Truths. Therefore, when considering the order as such, we cannot detect a noticeable influence of either Kuyper or Bavinck. However, Kersten evidently did make use of Bavinck for justifying his division of chapters.
Predestination
Like Kuyper and Bavinck, Kersten treats the doctrine of predestination under the rubric of the doctrine of God. Kersten first deals with predestination in general, and subsequently deals separately with election and reprobation. Due to the limitations of this article, I will restrict myself to predestination in general.
Predestination is defined by Kersten as “the decree of God concerning the eternal state of rational creatures, to the sovereign glory of His mercy and righteousness in them.” [15] He defines the characteristics of predestination as being sovereign, immutable, definite (that is, it pertains to specific individuals), eternal, and simple. [16] Kersten gives a detailed treatment of the difference between supra- and infra-lapsarianism; he devotes five pages to this dispute, more than is devoted to the characteristics of predestination. This is strange, for he deems both positions as being orthodox. It is one of the few exceptions of the rule that Kersten does not discuss the intramural disputes between Reformed divines.
Kersten himself does not expressly subscribe to one of the positions, but there are several indications that his preference is for the supra position. His defense of supralapsarianism is more emphatic than that of infralapsarianism, and he posits that the supra doctrine had many adherents among the best of the divines. [17] His historical references even give one the impression that he occasionally wishes to align history with the supralapsarian position. And thus he maintains that, at the Synod of Dort, Johannes Maccovious, among others, subscribed to the supralapsarian position. This is only correct insofar as Maccovius, against whom allegations had been made, had to defend his supralapsarianism at the Synod of Dort. Kersten also denies that the confessions are infralapsarian. He asserts that Franciscus Gomarus and Gisbertus Voetius would then have signed contrary to their convictions. However, upon reading the Canons of Dort, one cannot get around the fact that they teach that God has chosen men who share a common misery with others and have fallen from the state of initial rectitude. This is clearly infralapsarianism. upon reading the opinions of various delegates, one learns that only Gomarus expressly addressed supralapsarianism in his written deposition. The delegation from South Holland, to which Voetius belonged, did not address this dispute, considering it as being of lesser importance. All other opinions reveal evidence of embracing the infralapsarian position.
Kersten actually misrepresents the infralapsarian position by maintaining that, according to this doctrine, the fall was only included in God’s knowledge, but not in His decree. There have been infralapsarians who held this position, especially during the Reformation era, but it was not true for all. In that respect, it is strange that Kersten nevertheless acknowledges infralapsarianism as being orthodox. On the basis of his incorrect assessment, he places, among others, Augustine and Calvin in the supralapsarian camp. He must admit, however, that Augustine usually endorses the infra position. Concerning Calvin, he could have mentioned that this Reformer was indeed of the opinion that the fall was included in God’s decree, but that in addition to supralapsarian formulations, he also regularly uses those that were of an infralapsarian nature.
The question arises why Kersten devotes so much attention to a dispute that was not all that important, and of which he acknowledged both positions as being orthodox. The answer is probably to be found in Kersten’s remark that it is regrettable “that especially by the far-reaching consequences that Dr. A. Kuyper and his followers drew out of the supralapsarian doctrine, that supralapsarianism came under suspicion in the minds of many. Moreover for some people infralapsarianism must serve to give a few chapters of doctrine an un-Reformed meaning.” [18] The latter explains not only why Kersten devotes so much attention to this dispute, but also his emphatic defense of supralapsarianism. Kersten’s pejorative reference to Kuyper makes one suspect that he did not draw from Kuyper in his description of the doctrine of predestination. Yet, some particulars fall into place when we read Kuyper’s position. We already noted that Kersten distanced himself from Kuyper’s extreme supralapsarianism. [19] This influence is indeed negative, and yet it indicates that Kersten was familiar with the views of Kuyper regarding this subject, and that this position prompted him to address the topic in detail in his own systematic theology. A more direct influence is to be observed in the fact that Kuyper erroneously maintained that all infralapsarians exclude the fall from God’s decree. [20] Kersten probably adopted this erroneous view from Kuyper. Additional influence from Kuyper is not probable or, in any event, not obvious. For example, Kuyper posits that “thus far the dogmatic treatises have chosen a wrong starting point....” [21] Thus he opted for a different starting point than the traditional one, and a man like Kersten neither appreciated that nor did he emulate it.
Upon comparing Kersten with Bavinck, we can conclude that Kersten’s account of the history of supra and infra is again an extract from Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. [22] However, it is again not an extract that provides us with an adequate rendering of what Bavinck has written. Bavinck held that the supralapsarian position was already embedded in Augustine’s views. Kersten interprets this to mean that Augustine was a supralapsarian, but this is not what Bavinck is saying. Kersten also did not endorse Bavinck’s view that Calvin often expressed himself in infralapsarian terms. And finally, Bavinck makes it clear that in history the supra position has only ever been embraced by a minority—an impression one certainly does not get when reading Kersten’s assertion that the supra position was endorsed by “the best theologians.” Kersten thereby communicates his preference for supra, whereas Bavinck seems to lean more toward infralapsarianism.
It would be incorrect to conclude from this that Kersten did no more than selectively copy from Bavinck’s work for his description of the doctrine of predestination. He also did his own research as is evident from the fact that some of the writers and works he mentions in his footnotes are not found in Bavinck—at least not in a similar context. [23] Additionally, the characteristics of predestination are not discussed in Bavinck as they are in Kersten. He probably drew on this from Johannes à Marck, who lists the same characteristics. [24]
Calling And Regeneration
Kersten chose to treat calling and regeneration in two separate chapters. We have already seen that he deviates here from the chapter division of Hellenbroek. This separate treatment is all the more remarkable because Kersten emphatically maintains that calling and regeneration coincide. But Kersten had a special reason to treat them separately. In this context, Kuyper is mentioned by name, who taught that regeneration precedes calling. According to Kersten, however, although both benefits are contemporaneous, calling precedes regeneration when it comes to order. According to Kersten, Kuyper’s view robbed the internal call from its quickening power. [25]
Remarkably, Kersten gives no attention to another change in the ordo salutis—a change which is at least as far-reaching. Kuyper places justification before regeneration. upon comparing Kuyper and Kersten in regard to the arrangement of those doctrines that pertain to the ordo salutis, we will observe that they differ significantly from each other:
Upon comparing Kersten with Bavinck regarding this point, it is noteworthy that Bavinck treats calling and regeneration in one chapter. However, he uses the same order as Kersten would do later. Bavinck did this consciously, aligning himself with several older Reformed theologians. [26] Bavinck also treats faith and conversion in one chapter, just as is the case with sanctification and perseverance. Kersten does not treat the subject “conversion” separately; for him, this subject resides partially in regeneration and partially in sanctification. In this arrangement, we see similarities between Kersten and Bavinck. This does not necessarily imply influence, for this arrangement was not unusual. The separate treatment of calling and regeneration was a conscious choice of Kersten himself.
We find little of Kuyper in Kersten not only in regard to orderly arrangement, but also in regard to the contents of the chapter about calling. Kuyper exerted no influence on Kersten here. Kuyper’s chapter is characterized by a number of specifics, none of which are found in Kersten. Some of these are Kuyper’s emphasis on the calling as addressing the consciousness rather than the will, the difference between the archetypical and ectypical calling, and the possibility that a called person who is regenerate can postpone his conversion. [27]
Again, there are more similarities with Bavinck. Many topics mentioned by Kersten are also discussed by Bavinck. Regarding this subject, it cannot be said that Kersten in essence offers an extract of Bavinck. The orderly arrangement is different and the formulation differs as well. Kersten must undoubtedly have acquainted himself with Bavinck’s chapter about the calling, but he gives evidence of having processed this subject matter independently. [28] The likelihood of influence is most probable in the discussion of the general external call and its contents. Bavinck defends extensively that the offer of grace comes to all. [29] His arguments are (1) that the Scriptures teach that the gospel must be proclaimed to all; (2) that the content of the gospel is not that everyone is told that Christ died for them, but it is the exhortation to believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall receive the forgiveness of sin and eternal life; (3) God’s offer is earnest and sincere; (4) the general proclamation of the gospel is not in vain; (5) it is also of benefit to those who reject it; (6) God achieves His goal with the external call; (7) the calling maintains God’s claim upon man; and (8) the external call is subservient to the internal call. Kersten also defends the general external call, a designation that he uses interchangeably with “offer of grace.” [30] Bavinck’s arguments resurface, though in a different order.31 Also here Kersten did more than echo Bavinck, for he develops each argument in his own manner. We can therefore conclude that he made use of Bavinck in formulating his chapter about the calling, but we cannot view Bavinck as being his most important source.
In the second part of his chapter about the calling, Kersten addresses the internal calling. In so doing, he counters the position of Kuyper that regeneration precedes the internal calling. Kuyper maintained that to be capable of responding to the calling man must be regenerate. Kersten countered that the internal calling is the quickening or regenerating work of God. Calling and regeneration coincide; however, the calling is then the cause and regeneration the consequence. [32] It cannot be maintained that in this instance Kuyper influenced Kersten in any way.
Bavinck treats calling and regeneration in the same chapter. He holds that for Paul, regeneration is encompassed in the efficacious call. [33] Bavinck does not address Kuyper’s views on this topic. [34] Also in this instance Kersten addresses certain matters that are mentioned by Bavinck. However, once more Kersten processes this subject matter in his own way. Of all the subjects on which we have compared Kersten with Kuyper and Bavinck, Kersten’s treatment of the internal call, in which he emphatically opposes Kuyper, is the most original.
Even though Kersten allows calling and regeneration to coincide, he nevertheless, after having treated the internal call, proceeds to write at length about regeneration. [35] He probably derived the distinction between regeneration in the narrower and wider sense from Bavinck. He even refers to Bavinck when addressing the distinction between regeneratio activa and passiva. [36] He also made use of Bavinck, and made note of this, when he gives a historical overview of the various positions regarding the seed of regeneration. [37] Kersten, however, adds his own emphasis in this chapter. His paragraph teaching that there is no preparation for regeneration is not derived from Bavinck’s Dogmatics. Kuyper also teaches that there are no preparations, but he only devotes a few sentences to it.
Kuyper mentions a few characteristics of regeneration, namely, that it is passive, irresistible, irreversible, and perfect in its essence. [38] It would not have been surprising if Kersten, who elsewhere in his systematic theology frequently uses such enumerations, would have adopted this— especially since he had no principal objections to it. The fact that he did not is proof once more that he did not use Kuyper’s systematic theology as one of his sources in writing his own systematic theology—that is, not as a source in a positive sense. He did use Kuyper’s Dictaten Dogmatiek for the purpose of refuting a given doctrine. Thus he expresses his opposition to Kuyper’s doctrine that regeneration normally precedes both the calling and baptism, as well as to his doctrine of presupposed regeneration. It is remarkable that Kersten does not register many objections to presupposed regeneration as such. It troubles him far more that the marks of the life of grace and self-examination have been relegated to the background for members of the Reformed churches. On the basis of what he writes in this context, one gets the impression that Kersten possibly would not have deemed presupposed regeneration wholly unacceptable if the marks of grace were to be preached and the need for self-examination would have been pressed home. [39]
Kuyper’s idea of a latent regeneration was utterly unacceptable in Kersten’s view. Kersten referred to this supposition, related to Kuyper’s doctrine that the seed of regeneration is present in the elect from birth, as well as his doctrine that regeneration precedes the calling, as “contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and soul-deceiving.
We cannot warn against this doctrine strongly or earnestly enough.” [40] Finally, Kersten opposes Kuyper’s view that regeneration must be presupposed at baptism. [41]
One could ask Kersten how we are to view children who die in infancy. If the calling precedes regeneration, and is the means unto regeneration, then children who are not yet capable of engaging their intellect could be neither called nor regenerated, and thus could not be saved. Kersten did address this question, and responded that God works immediately in such children. However, he could not concur with Kuyper who held that, generally speaking, God regenerates His elect at a very young age. [42] Kersten could have made use of Bavinck for his criticism of Kuyper’s views, for Bavinck—albeit with less emphatic language and without mentioning Kuyper’s name—makes very similar remarks regarding the moment of regeneration and the seed of regeneration. The fact that it is precisely in this chapter that Kersten explicitly refers to Bavinck is very significant in this context. When we concluded earlier that Kersten had made use of Bavinck, his name was usually not mentioned.
Conclusion
At the conclusion of this comparison, it must first of all be noted that every subsequent conclusion is relative. This investigation was very limited in scope: One work of Kersten was compared with one work of Kuyper and one work of Bavinck, and then only regarding a few issues. My conclusions therefore only pertain to these subjects insofar as they are dealt with in the systematic theologies of these individuals.
The impact of Kuyper’s systematic theology upon that of Kersten is almost exclusively negative. Kuyper is only mentioned by Kersten for the purpose of rebuttal. Even regarding those issues where Kersten and Kuyper did not differ, one cannot find a trace of either influence or usage. Kersten’s familiarity with Kuyper’s systematic theology is evident from the instances when he refers to it. The only time when any influence by Kuyper could be considered as a possibility is Kersten’s erroneous assessment of infralapsarianism.
We have a decidedly different situation regarding Bavinck’s influence upon Kersten’s systematic theology. A close study reveals repeatedly that Kersten used him as he formulated his dogmatics. On a few occasions, this was no more than using it and then processing material independently. However, on several other occasions, it was evident that Kersten did not have to offer much more than an extract from Bavinck, albeit not word for word. This occurred especially when he would deal with the historical development of a doctrine; Kersten would then lean heavily on Bavinck. This was not a bad choice, for Bavinck proved to be extremely knowledgeable in the history of dogma. Kersten could hardly have found a better overview. In regard to the more technical aspects of systematic theology, such as his justification of the title and the arrangement of subject matter, Kersten again borrowed from Bavinck. One suspects that he did not have a good grasp of this material, for a few times he misses the mark, or he interprets Bavinck incorrectly. However, regarding the content of the doctrines under examination, it is apparent that Kersten was capable of processing this material independently. Particularly in those sections that take issue with Kuyper, Kersten proves himself to be capable of more than simply regurgitating others’ points of view.
It would be interesting if more research could be done relative to Kersten’s writings. In doing so, one not only would have to interact with Kuyper and Bavinck, but also with Reformed theologians of an earlier date.
Notes
- This article is translated by Bartel Elshout from H. Florijn and J. Mastenbroek, eds., Gerrit Hendrik Kersten: Grenswachter en gids van de Gereformeerde Gemeenten (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 2008).
- Bernardinus de Moor, Commentarius perpetuus in Johannis Marckii Compendium theologiae Christianae didactico-elencticum I-VII (Leiden: Johannes Hasebroek, 1761-1778). This work is a continual commentary upon the systematic theology work of Johannes à Marck.
- J. H. Scholten, De leer der Hervormde Kerk in hare grondbeginselen uit de bronnen voorgesteld en beoordeeld (The Fundamental Principles of the Doctrine of the Reformed Church Presented and Examined from the Original Sources) (Leiden, 1848). In this work, Scholten approaches the confessions from a modern perspective.
- Dolerenden is the name for those who, led by Abraham Kuyper, left the National Dutch Reformed Church with the doleantie (which means “mourning”) in 1886.
- Abraham Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek (Dogmatic lectures) (Kampen, 1910). The initial publication occurred in 1897. In 1910, a second edition of the entire work was published. Each volume of this work is separately titled in Latin in accord with its contents, but the title Dictaten dogmatiek is printed on the spine.
- The first edition was published in Kampen in 1895. Between 1906 and 1911, a somewhat modified second edition was published. Recently, the entire set has been made available in English through the efforts of the Dutch Reformed Translation Society: Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003-2008).
- G.H. Kersten, De gereformeerde dogmatiek voor de gemeenten toegelicht (Reformed Dogmatics Explained for the Congregations) (Utrecht, 1947). In 1980, an English translation was published, entitled Reformed Dogmatics: A Systematic Treatment of Reformed Doctrine Explained for the Congregations, trans. Joel R. Beeke and J. C. Weststrate (Sioux Center, Iowa: Netherlands Reformed Book and Publishing Committee). All references in these footnotes will be to the English edition.
- Bavinck, 1:3.
- Kersten, 1:xiii–xiv; Bavinck, 1:1-26. For example, the reference to the unknown Lucas Reinhart is also found in Bavinck.
- Cocceius is an example of this, whose method Kersten deems objectionable. Regarding Kersten’s arrangement of subject matter, see the next paragraph.
- Kersten’s biographer, Maarten Golverdingen, objected to my conclusions drawn from the use of the definite article. He posits that it was merely added to make the title grammatically correct. However, Kersten’s choice of the definite article “the” instead of the indefinite article “a,” and the absence of a finite form rendering the title still an incomplete sentence, makes Golverdingen’s objection unconvincing. It seems to me that Kersten indeed intended to present “the” Reformed dogmatics to the congregations, albeit perhaps less conscious than this paragraph suggests.
- In his five volumes, Kuyper addresses sequentially the Doctrine of God (I); the Scriptures and Creation (II); Providence, Sin, The Covenant, and Christ (III); soteriology, ecclesiology, and the sacraments (IV); and finally, Government and Eschatology (V). Kuyper did not arrange his subject matter according to a given principle, as is true for Bavinck and Kersten, but according to several loci or themes from the doctrines of the faith.
- Kersten, 1:xiv–xv.
- Kersten possibly maintained this order for the sake of the churches for which he was writing. Within the Reformed Congregations, the little work of Hellenbroek was used almost exclusively for catechetical instruction.
- Kersten, 1:119. In terms of content, this agrees with Kuyper and Bavinck. That is not an indication of influence per se, since this definition was common.
- Ibid., 1:119-123.
- Ibid., 1:126-130.
- Ibid., 1, 130.
- Kuyper inclines toward teaching that according to God’s decree man is predestined to be a sinner and that this decree is the essential matter for God, of infinitely greater value than its execution.
- Kuyper, 1:5, 125-26.
- Ibid., 1:5, 175.
- Ibid., 1:126-30 are largely a restatement of Bavinck, 2:371-79.
- He mentions, for example, à Marck and Van Mastricht.
- J. à Marck, Het merch der christene Got-geleertheit (The Marrow of Christian Divinity) (Rotterdam, 1730), 171-181.
- Kersten, 2:363.
- Bavinck, 3:669.
- Kuyper, 4:84-92.
- à Marck, whom Kersten frequently consults as a source, cannot be designated as the one whom Kersten followed or summarized.
- Bavinck, 4:5-11.
- Kersten, 2:366-72. These pages are not devoted entirely to the defense of the general external call; Kersten also refutes various errors.
- Ibid., 2:369. Kersten presents sequential arguments 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 3.
- Kersten, 2:374-75.
- Bavinck, 4:23.
- Implicitly, Bavinck strongly criticizes Kuyper when he posits, 4:63: “For all these reasons, the Reformed have generally and unanimously retained the connection between the external and internal call, as well as the order of calling and regeneration.” In doing so, he actually indicates that Kuyper’s view is not Reformed! A critical remark by Bavinck can also be found, where he criticizes Kuyper’s view that regeneration precedes baptism (4:32).
- Kersten, 2:376-93.
- Ibid., 2:377-78; cf. Bavinck, 4:58.
- Ibid., 2:94.
- Kuyper, 4:1, 80.
- Kersten, 2:384 –85. A few pages later, he elaborates about his refutation: “If nothing of this efficacious, inward operation of the Holy Spirit is experienced or revealed, we need not consider nor treat the children as having been regenerated, as, alas, is done so generally. That does not mean that we merely condemn them, but it does mean that God demands of us that we be faithful in dealing with their souls” (2:387-88).
- Ibid., 2:386.
- Ibid., 2:392.
- Ibid., 2:387-88.
No comments:
Post a Comment