“BECOME WHAT YOU ARE!” A CONSIDERATION OF THE ROLE OF ADOPTION IN RELATION TO JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION IN THE THEOLOGY OF HERMAN BAVINCK
by
Jessica C. Bent
B.Th., Acadia University, 2016
Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Acadia Divinity College, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts (Theology)
Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University
© JESSICA CATHERINE BENT, 2018 This thesis by Jessica C. Bent was defended successfully in an oral examination on 2 April 2018.
The examining committee for the thesis was:
Dr. Stephen McMullin, Chair
Dr. Jonathan Wilson, External Examiner
Dr. Christopher Killacky, Internal Examiner
Dr. Anna Robbins, Supervisor
Dr. Glenn Wooden, MA(Th) Director
This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).
ii
I, Jessica C. Bent, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.
Jessica C. Bent Author
Dr. Anna Robbins Supervisor
2 April 2018 Date
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...... vi Abstract ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Chapter One: Bavinck and his Context ...... 7 Bavinck’s Early Life ...... 9 Childhood ...... 11 Leiden University...... 13 Bavinck and Kuyper ...... 15 Pastor, Professor, and Politician ...... 20 Professor ...... 21 Politician ...... 25 Legacy of Herman Bavinck ...... 26 Chapter Two: Bavinck’s Theology of Justification and Sanctification ...... 32 Justification ...... 34 Freedom from the Consequence of Sin ...... 35 Forensic Justification ...... 36 Active and Passive Justification...... 39 Justification and Adoption ...... 43 Sanctification ...... 47 The Work of Christ ...... 49 Against Entire Sanctification ...... 51 Active and Passive Sanctification ...... 54 Sanctification and Adoption ...... 57 Summary ...... 58 Chapter Three: Adoption ...... 61 A Neglected Doctrine ...... 63 Begotten vs. Adopted ...... 67 Background to Paul’s use of Huiothesia ...... 71 Greco-Roman Legal Practice ...... 72 Redemptive-Historical Adoption of Israel ...... 76 Both Greco-Roman and Old Testament ...... 78 Adoption of Christ ...... 82
iv
Adopted and Eternal ...... 84 Solely Eternal ...... 87 Role in the Ordo Salutis ...... 91 Picture of the Whole of Salvation ...... 92 A Part of Justification ...... 95 Separate Role in the Ordo Salutis ...... 96 Summary ...... 99 Chapter Four: Adoption in Relation to Justification and Sanctification ...... 103 Bavinck’s Understanding ...... 106 For the Whole Person...... 107 Importance of Union with Christ ...... 111 Justification ...... 115 Sanctification ...... 117 The Intertwining of Adoption ...... 120 Bringing Adoption, Justification, and Sanctification Together ...... 123 Conclusion ...... 133 A Practical Application ...... 136 Possibilities for Further Study ...... 144 Final Remarks ...... 149 Bibliography ...... 152
v
Abstract
The study of the doctrine of adoption has drawn increasing interest in recent years.
Adoption has often been considered a part of justification and as such it has not always enjoyed the interest granted to other doctrines, such as justification and sanctification.
This study engages the thought of the Dutch Reformed theologian Dr. Herman Bavinck
(1854-1921) and his concept of adoption in light of his theological conceptions of justification and sanctification. Bavinck wove the concept of adoption into his discussion of justification and sanctification, through union with Christ and the work of the Holy
Spirit. However, he does not offer an explicit theology of adoption. This lack yields deficiencies in his consideration of active sanctification, contradicting the active Christ- focused public life that Bavinck lived. Placing a greater emphasis on adoption may have helped him forge more clearly the connection between justification and sanctification without relegating active sanctification to a second-class status.
vi
Acknowledgements
I want to thank my family, Mum, Dad, Victoria, Matthew, and especially my adoptive and foster siblings, David, Arabelle, Amberlee, Levi, and Abigale. Without you all, I would not have a heart for adoption, both on a horizontal and vertical level. I would like to thank my parents for not only homeschooling me and widening my horizons by bringing our family to Canada but also for supporting me both in academic endeavors and in life. Without you, I would not be who I am today.
I also want to thank the professors that I have had throughout my Master’s degree,
Dr. Zacharias, Dr. McCurdy, Dr. Janzen, Dr. Brackney, and Dr. Wooden. You have all challenged me, supported me, and have made me not only a better academic but also a better person. I would also like to express my gratitude to the staff at Acadia Divinity
College for their support and help. I especially want to thank Dr. Wilson for not only his classes but also for his guidance as I dove into finding out who Herman Bavinck was.
Without you, I would not have the understanding of Bavinck and his cultural context.
To my thesis supervisor, Dr. Robbins, I wish to express my deepest gratitude. Your classes were enjoyable and challenged me to think theologically about many topics which we all face in the world today. The classes not only kept me engaged but they also helped to grow my love of theology. You were instrumental in helping me in all the stages of my thesis. Thank you for your example and for being easy to relate to and talk to about my ideas. I also wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Killacky, your classes during my undergrad were what inspired me to continue theological studies. I also want to thank you for allowing me the honour of being your T.A. I have learnt so much through observing
vii your interactions with your class and also through our many discussions. Your mentorship will always hold an important place in my heart as I go forward.
I wish to thank Jon Scarpuzzi for his friendship and for keeping me on my toes when discussing theology and many other topics. It was a blessing to be able to share classes with you and to always be challenged in my ideas. You never let me give an offhand remark without being able to express what I truly mean! I would not be who I am without your friendship.
I also want to thank the other members of the Acadia Divinity College Student
Association for your support and the hard work that you all put in for the students of the
Divinity College. It was a pleasure serving with you. I also wish to thank my congregation, Grace Village Church, you have all supported me and have provided me with a wonderful church family. You helped to reinforce my understanding that of all members of the Church are all citizens of God’s kingdom, siblings in the family of God.
Finally, I want to thank the amazing coaches and athletes of the Wolfville Tritons
Swim Club. You have shown me dedication, friendship, and the power of hard work. I especially want to thank Head Coach Moira for your leadership, encouragement, and mentorship in the art of coaching. I also want to thank Caitlin and Hayden for your friendship and support as I have been studying. You have kept me sane! To everyone else who have supported me and my family both here in Canada and in New Zealand, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I pray that you will grow closer to God and will experience the responsibilities and privileges of being members of God’s family as you continue working out your faith. I am so thankful that God has placed you all in my life.
viii
Introduction
Of the many aspects of my life, my family is the dearest to my heart. I have traveled from one side of this planet to the other with my family, we have experienced hardship and a complete reorientation of life. These experiences have taught me the importance of family. Though not perfect by a long stretch I know that no matter where I am in my journey in life I have a family that will stand by my side. Ever since I was young our family motto has been reinforced in both my head and my heart – “Bents stick together.”
Through thick and thin, through hardships and joys, disagreements and agreements we work it out together.
It shames me to say that I have not always appreciated my family as much as I could have. However, I have learned through trials and joys what family is all about. I have also learned this vital truth from my youngest four siblings. As the oldest child in my family, I remember always being told that I may have more siblings through adoption. This seemed natural to me as my two uncles on my mother’s side were adopted as young boys.
It seemed so natural to me that I used to beg to have an older brother. While this never came to be I did watch my parents struggle and fight to adopt.
My mother had always wanted a large family but due to health reasons she was only able to have three biological children; me, my sister, and my brother, all at great risk to her health. I witnessed how heartbroken she was to not be able to have any more children.
Years passed and my parents were unable to adopt. First one country closed its doors and then another. My parents resigned themselves to not being able to expand our family through adoption. Soon we traveled to Canada and settled here.
1
The will to adopt did not leave my parents hearts and minds if anything their resolve strengthened. More challenges in the attempt to adopt arose as they again tried to begin the journey of adoption. Despite these challenges, it soon became apparent that this time was God’s timing and all of the failed attempts prior had not been in vain. My family soon welcomed four children aged ten, nine, eight, and five from an Eastern European orphanage into our home and hearts.
It has been three-and-a-half years since that the day I met them at the airport. The two oldest were weary from travel and buzzed with excitement. The youngest girl had shut herself down completely and did not seem to be aware of anything that was happening around her. The youngest boy of five, appearing to be a year or two younger, looked severely ill, his pale face contrasting the big shadows beneath his blue eyes, his frame almost skeletal, held my mother’s hand. In the weeks and months following their arrival, it soon became apparent that these four non-English-speaking children had a host of medical issues that had not been disclosed on any records. These issues are still being discovered and understood to this day.
While the journey to this point has been challenging and continues to pose new challenges every day, watching them learn to be loved and how to show love has been one of the best experiences of my life. They knew not how to accept or recognize love when they came home. Just as I would do anything for my biological siblings I would do anything for my adopted siblings. They are my family and nothing will change this glorious fact.
It was through watching them and coming to know them as my younger siblings that I began to reflect on life within the family of God. We often forget, especially those of us
2 that have been in the church since we were young, that prior to our acceptance into the family of God we were subject to sin and were children of wrath. At our adoption into the family of God, we had to learn what it meant to be loved by our Father and what it meant to love Him and love our siblings, our family. We as Christians must learn what it means to be a part of a family. What does family mean? What are our roles in the family? And most importantly of all what does it mean to love and to be loved?
This reflection of the Church as God’s family and of our process of being justified, adopted, and sanctified brought me to the questions that formed the basis of this study. I wanted to know how being a child of God interacted with other aspects of our salvation.
Does it have bearing on our faith and our sanctification or is adoption solely a picture of what salvation is? Does adoption really have bearing on our salvation and the inner needs of our souls? I knew I had to begin with a single question. It is from this that this study has arisen.
The theology of the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck will be the focus of this study. Through an examination of justification and sanctification in his magnum opus, the four-volume Reformed Dogmatics, I will endeavor to discern how he uses the doctrine of adoption in connection with these two prominent theological doctrines.
Justification could be seen as a doctrinal giant in the study of Reformed theology.
Though Bavinck brings adoption into the discussions of both justification and sanctification, his focus is primarily on the passive nature of these two doctrines. In his attempt to connect sanctification with justification through union with Christ, Bavinck appears to lose the importance of the active aspect of sanctification. Could a greater focus
3 on adoption have given Bavinck the ability to speak more on active sanctification while not losing the significance he places on grace?
The first chapter will introduce Bavinck and set the context for his work. This will highlight the apparent disconnect between Bavinck’s active Christian life and his minimal emphasis on active sanctification. Once it has been firmly established who
Bavinck was, the study will turn to determining what Bavinck’s theological understanding of justification and sanctification was in chapter two. The predominant source for this chapter will be volume four of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, Holy
Spirit, Church, and New Creation. It is in this work that Bavinck’s mature theology can be assessed, which will lay the foundation for the following chapters.
To remedy Bavinck’s apparent disconnect from active sanctification, it will be proposed that an understanding of the doctrine of adoption would allow for Bavinck’s focus on Christ being one’s righteousness and holiness to remain intact while allowing for expansion on his concept of active sanctification. Bavinck alludes to this solution himself but does not expand upon his thought. In order to work out how adoption can work as a bridge between justification and sanctification, the theological concept of adoption will be considered. This consideration will also allow for a concept of active sanctification to be highlighted. The study of adoption in chapter three will go beyond
Bavinck’s work and will consider more recent works in an attempt to create a concept of adoption that can be utilized while still harmonizing with Bavinck’s thought.
Theological neglect of the doctrine of adoption within Reformed circles will be considered briefly before exploring the background to Paul’s use of huiothesia. This brief
4 study will be important as it has theological ramifications. If the concept behind huiothesia is primarily driven by a Roman legal understanding of adoption then it may be more appropriate to see adoption as an element of justification. If huiothesia is seen, however, to be the result of an extension of the concept of the Israelites being “adopted” as God’s people at the Exodus then adoption may be seen as more of a larger covenantal aspect. This second concept of huiothesia may result in some loss of the individual aspect of salvation despite highlighting the important community aspect of salvation.
The question of whether it is necessary for Christ to be adopted in order for believers to be adopted will also be examined. Additionally, there will be some discussion on the differing views of adoption’s role in the ordo salutis. Adoption’s role in comparison to justification and sanctification will be returned to in the following chapter. By laying out some of the concepts of the doctrine of adoption the stage will be set to develop
Bavinck’s thought. Bavinck alludes to adoption as a connection between justification and active sanctification but does not expand on this idea. The development of this concept will allow for gaps in Bavinck’s thought, and between his life and theology, to be bridged.
In chapter four, adoption’s relation to justification and sanctification in Bavinck’s
Reformed Dogmatics will be examined. Once Bavinck’s view has been assessed, a conclusion will be made concerning his view and how adoption relates to justification and sanctification together. Following from that will be the expansion of Bavinck’s allusion to adoption connecting justification, passive sanctification, and active sanctification.
5
In the conclusion, aspects of the study will be considered for practical application in the believer’s life. Questions and possibilities for future study will be considered. These will include vertical adoption as a model for Christian orphan care and family building; the relationship between the Holy Spirit and adoption; and connection to Feminist theology. It is the author’s hope that this thesis will reveal more of who God is and the nature of His relationship with those who pursue Him in study.
6
Chapter One:
Bavinck and his Context
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) has been considered one of the Netherland’s finest theologians. James Hutton Mackay, Hastie Lecturer, Glasgow University, 1911, argued that Bavinck was the ablest living writer on Dogmatics in Holland and believed that he was going to shape the 20th century.1 Unfortunately, Bavinck suffered a heart attack following the Synod of Leeuwarden in 1929 and was not able to recover in the subsequent months. He passed away on July 29th, 1921.2 Though regrettably seen by many as merely “Dr. Kuyper’s loyal and learned theological henchman,”3 Bavinck has significantly impacted many. Bavinck was described as a pastor who cherished his congregation, a father who loved his wife and daughter,4 a renowned theologian, a sought-after speaker, and a member of the First Chamber of Parliament in the
Netherlands.
Bavinck may be little known in many in evangelical circles in Canada. This may be due to the full four-volume set of his Reformed Dogmatics being made available in
1 James Hutton Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), x-xi. 2 Ronald N. Gleason, Herman Bavinck: Pastor, Churchman, Statesman, and Theologian, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2010), 416-419. 3 Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century, x. 4 July 2, 1891, marked the marriage of Herman Bavinck to Johanna Adriana Schippers whose union was blessed on November 5th, 1894, when Johanna Geziena Bavinck was born. Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 139-140. 7
English only ten years ago.5 It may also be due to there being only one full English biography of Bavinck available for readers.6 However, as more of his work is being translated into English and as he is gaining more interest in the English speaking world his name may become better known. This is not to say that no work has been done on
Bavinck’s thought. Scholars such as John Bolt,7 Hans Burger,8 and Dane Ortlund9 seek to bring to light Bavinck’s insights.10
This chapter will examine who Bavinck was within his context of place and time. The examination will begin with his early life and move on to his time studying at the liberal
5 Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 1, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Herman Bavinck, God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 2, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004); Herman Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 3, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006); Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 4, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). 6 Gleason, Herman Bavinck. 7 John Bolt, “Christ and the Law in the Ethics of Herman Bavinck,” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993); John Bolt “The Bavinck Recipe for Theological Cake,” Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (2010); John Bolt, A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck's Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi: Between Pietism and Modernism, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2013); John Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, by Herman Bavinck, edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend, vol. 2, Reformed Dogmatics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004). For additional work by Bolt on Bavinck’s thought see “Herman Bavinck Bibliography,” The Bavinck Institute, accessed February 07, 2018, https://bavinckinstitute.org/resources/herman-bavinck-bibliography/. 8 Hans Burger, Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective, (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2009). 9 Dane Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend’: Bavinck’s Doctrine of Justification,” Calvin Theological Journal 46 (2011); Dane Ortlund, “‘Created Over a Second Time’ or ‘Grace Restoring Nature’? Edwards and Bavinck on the Heart of Christian Salvation,” The Bavinck Review 3 (2012); Dane Ortlund, “Sanctification by Justification: The Forgotten Insight of Bavinck and Berkouwer on Progressive Sanctification,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 28, no. 1 (2010). 10 For a list of secondary sources see “Herman Bavinck Bibliography,” The Bavinck Institute, accessed February 07, 2018, https://bavinckinstitute.org/resources/herman- bavinck-bibliography/. 8 university of Leiden. Abraham Kuyper’s influence will also be considered before moving on to examining Bavinck’s time as a pastor in Franeker. Continuing on from this will be an examination of his time at the Theological Seminary at Kampen and at the Free
University of Amsterdam. Amongst this will be consideration of his work within Church politics and state politics. Finally, a brief overview of a selection of his varied works will be given.
An examination of who Bavinck was and the legacy he left will inform significantly the future chapters of this thesis. By gaining an understanding of who he was, Bavinck’s theology will be better understood. Furthermore, through an examination of his life, the concept of an active sanctification can be clearly demonstrated. In light of Bavinck’s active and public Christian life, a disconnect with his theological work on active sanctification is seen. This chapter showcases the life and legacy of Bavinck in order to highlight the gap between the active sanctification of his life and that of his work. This will allow for future chapters to bridge the gap between his lifestyle and work.
Bavinck’s Early Life
Bavinck was born December 13, 1854, to Jan and Gesina Bavinck, the second child of seven.11 His birth came just one week after the opening of the Theological Seminary in
Kampen, the official training center for the Afsceiding secessionist movement.12 Bavinck
11 Eric D. Bristley, and John Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck (1854- 1921), (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 10. 12 Following the uniting of the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium) into a single united kingdom following the fall of Napoleon, the head of this united nation, William I, wanted to control the ecclesiastical scene in addition to the political scene. William made a royal decree in 1816 to unite all the Protestant citizens into one 9 would shape this school directly. However, he was not the only Bavinck to take a role in the development of this institution. His father, Jan Bavinck, was one of the Succession movement’s first ministers and theological professors despite him lacking a doctoral degree.13 The establishment of the seminary helped to mark the success of the struggle that the young church had endured. It was only six years prior that the Secession had been granted religious freedom and the right to worship.14 Bavinck was born into a heritage of piety and deep faith from a legacy of strong faith which passed on from the
Dutch Second Reformation and continued through to the Secession.15
Protestant church. This decree resulted in removing much of the Dutch Reformed Church’s freedom. Louis Praamsma explains that by replacing the old synodical system of church government with a new system William was allowed to appoint the members of the General Synod. A result of this political move was acceptance of both orthodox and liberal interpretations of the confessional standards. Due to freedom of doctrine, a variety of different schools of thought were able to enter into the church. Pastor Hendrick de Cock was not satisfied with the Groningen theology that had entered into the state church. Rather than preaching in accordance to this school of thought he began to preach the themes of Calvin and the Synod of Dort. Many parishioners from other congregations were attracted to his preaching and he baptized them. He was soon suspended from his charge but his congregation would not accept his removal as their pastor. This resulted in them seceding from the state run Dutch Reformed Church. Another congregation joined them shortly after and within two years the secession (Afsceiding) of 1834 was comprised of over 120 other congregations. For more information about the secessionist church see: L. Praamsma, Let Christ Be King: Reflections on the Life and Times of Abraham Kuyper, (Jordan Station, ON: Paideia Press, 1985); James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). 13 Jan Bavinck would not begin his work at the Theological Seminary until 1873, he turned down the option to teach there at the time of the school’s establishment. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America, 30; Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 40. 14 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 25. 15 The Dutch Revolt (1567) lead to a division in the Low Countries and separation between the North and South. William of Orange, a member if the Council of State until 1566, began his leadership of the Revolt in 1564 when he led legal opposition to King Philip’s (Spain) policies. The North held a successful revolt and separated from the ruling country, however, the South was not so successful. Alessandro Farnese of Parma, a strategist, diplomat, and Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, besieged cities one by one with terms of surrender dictating that heretics (Protestants) must leave within two years. 10
Childhood
As a young boy, Bavinck attended the Hasselman Institute. Due to his father teaching catechisms, Latin, Hebrew, and Greek at the school Bavinck was able to study as a child at a school that was renowned for its emphasis on languages.16 No doubt this early emphasis on languages played an important role in Bavinck’s intellectual development and prepared him for continual studies. Gleason writes that growing up, Jan Bavinck
In response approximately 150,000 refugees fled to the Northern Netherlands. These refugees not only brought their skills as craftspeople, traders, intellects, and artists, they also brought their strong faith. Calvinistic thought was especially unifying to the people of the Low Countries as it exhibited a strong organizing power among the people. At a time when the Low Countries were trying to gain freedom from Spanish rule, sympathy for the Reformation meant a rejection of the status quo of an absolutist state and of the Catholic Church. With the rejection of Catholic and Spanish authority, the people of the Netherlands understood the Reformation and its thought, especially Calvinistic thought, as aligning with the House of Orange. The Reformed understanding of Christianity became the faith of the state when the Dutch Republic officially became a state at the Great Assembly of 1651. Despite Reformed thought being the prevailing understanding of faith in the Dutch Republic it was not until the seventeenth century that Dutch Calvinism really took hold of the hearts and minds of the people. In parallel to English Puritanism, the Dutch Second Reformation, de Nadere Reformatie, set the scene for further pietistic movements that were to emerge in the nineteenth century. A period of subjectivity in the eighteenth century followed the Dutch Second Reformation. Bavinck writes that in this period Reformed theology withdrew from public life. However, Calvinism was not lost to all, it became the heartbeat of the humble and secluded circles of the common people. It would be from this humble and strong pietistic faith that the Secession would emerge and from that group the mind of Herman Bavinck. For more information regarding the historical development of the Low Countries see: J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts, History of the Low Countries, (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999). For more information regarding the rise of Calvinism and Reformed thought in the Netherlands see: Herman Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5, no. 17 (1894): 2006, http://scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets.aspe- x?src=BR1894517&div=1&img=24; Herman Bavinck, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands,” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3, no. 10 (1892): 2006, http://scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets.aspx?src=BR1892310&div=1&img=20; Joel R. Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999). 16 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 32. 11 played an important role in the young Bavinck’s life. Jan brought a powerful spiritual influence that was marked by prayer to the family, his committed spiritual walk was accented by his strong intellect.17 In addition to his father’s influence was Bavinck’s mother’s simplicity and truth.18 Both parents displayed a devout life of faith that would impact the whole of Bavinck’s life.
Once completing courses at the Institute with high marks Bavinck moved on to a
Gymnasium at Zwolle where he continued to excel, winning multiple prizes in a variety of academic areas.19 Bristley and Bolt note that near the end of his time at Zwolle
Bavinck made a public profession to the faith and was admitted to communicant membership in the Secessionist church.20 This commitment would play a significant role in Bavinck’s work in the church.
After studying for a year (1873-74) at the Theological Seminary at Kampen, Bavinck went to study at the University of Leiden. The desire that led Bavinck to study at a school well-known for its liberal and modernist ideas was one that would govern much of
Bavinck’s academic life. Gleason notes that Bavinck wanted to experience liberal theology first hand. Bavinck believed that if one was to level criticism against another theology or theologian then one must be well versed in that which he was criticising.21
17 Ibid, 34. 18 Ibid. 19 Following his entrance exams to the Gymnasium, Bavinck was able to skip first year classes and begin with second year classes. He also completed his second and third years of study in one year. His first place prizes were in the areas of English, Dutch and Math. In his final year he took first place honours in writing, Latin, French, and Dutch. Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 33, 38, 40. 20 Bristley and Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck, 10. 21 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 44. 12
His decision to go to Leiden in 1874 was frowned upon and criticized by many in the
Secession church.
Leiden University
His time at Leiden helped to shape Bavinck into who he was. His desire to understand others and not to shy away from thought that contradicted his own yielded a rigorous and engaging theology. During his time at Leiden, the naturalistic approach was being applied to psychology and theology.22 Herman Bavinck studied under scholars such as Abraham
Kuenen (1828-91) a higher critic who reconstructed the Old Testament to a Hegelain concept of history; J. H. Scholten (1811-85) who worked with a new system of theology that substituted the determinism of monastic idealism for the doctrine of predestination; and others like L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, Cornelis Tiele, Matthias de Vries, and J. P. N.
Land.23
While at Leiden, Bavinck added Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic to his knowledge of
French, English, German, and Dutch as well as mastering theology and philosophy.24
Focusing on Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli for his dissertation, Bavinck graduated with a Doctor of theology cum laude in 1880.25 In John Bolt’s assessment of Bavinck’s dissertation, he writes that Bavinck’s judgment on Zwingli was that theology could only enter the consciousness of the modern world to the degree that it demonstrates its ethical
22 Bristley and Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck, 11. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid, 12. 25 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 60. 13 value and significance.26 Bavinck would go on to write more on ethics as he continued through his career.
It was during Bavinck’s time at Leiden that Abraham Kuyper walked onto the political and theological scene. Bristley and Bolt note that Kuyper had a great impact on
Bavinck as Kuyper’s personality and material captivated the young theologian.27 At the start of his time at Leiden Bavinck was able to attend a debate between Kuyper and
Theodorus Heemskerk (1852-1932), both of whom would shape the Netherlands as Prime
Minister.28 According to Gleason, Bavinck was delighted by the debate, but when he met
Kuyper face-to-face near the end of his studies at Leiden, he was less than enthused.
However, Kuyper asked to meet with him again and Bavinck was offered a professorship in Eastern Languages at the Free University of Amsterdam provided he graduated from
Leiden.29
Bavinck would turn down the offer to work at the Free University, but his long-time interaction and friendship with Kuyper was just beginning. Gleason tells of how, in
Bavinck’s diary, the young man mentions that if he had taken the appointment at that time, it would have been to the will and glory of Kuyper rather than God.30 It can be seen, therefore, that from the start Bavinck was not going to allow himself to be pushed into positions by Kuyper but would stand as an equal to him. Bavinck would make his own
26 Bolt, “Christ and the Law in the Ethics of Herman Bavinck,” 47. 27 Bristley and Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck, 12. 28 Heemskerk was Prime Minister from 1908-13 and the minister of internal affairs. From 1918-25 he would serve as minister of justice, and as minister of state in 1926. Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 63. 29 Ibid, 63-64. 30 Ibid, 65. 14 decisions, supporting Kuyper when he believed that it was to the glory of God and not because of the high position that Kuyper had.
Bolt notes that it was in Kuyper’s Trinitarian-rooted, this-worldly Calvinism, that
Bavinck found resources to bring about unity to his thought.31 Bavinck sought a
Trinitarian synthesis of Christianity and culture as he worked towards a Christian worldview that incorporated what was best and true in both pietistic and modernistic thought while continuing to honour the theology and confessions of the Reformed tradition.32 He came alongside Kuyper, the pioneer of Dutch neo-Calvinism, to be one of neo-Calvinism’s “chief and most respected spokesmen as well as its premier theologian.”33
Bavinck’s time at Leiden helped him to develop a theological method that is marked by an openness towards a variety of theological thought. Additionally, it is apparent that through his lifestyle that he sought to bring his theological convictions to fruition within his life. Did Bavinck’s theological outworking align with the active sanctification he modeled in his life? The remainder of this chapter will continue to build the picture of
Bavinck’s active and public Christian lifestyle so that the question posed can be answered.
31 Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, 18. 32 Ibid, 15. 33 Ibid. 15
Bavinck and Kuyper
Unlike Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) was born into the state church where his father, Jan Frederik, served as a minister.34 Prior to Bavinck’s stay at the University of
Leiden, Kuyper had been enrolled and graduated from Leiden. He went on to serve in the
Dutch Reformed church, despite losing much of his belief in Reformed theology. It was at his first pastorate in Beesd that Kuyper embraced Calvinism. Peter Heslam argues that it was there that Kuyper came to see Calvinism as more than a historical and ecclesiastical phenomenon but rather a worldview, as a way of thought and life.35
Groen van Prinsterer was one of the two main leaders in the Réveil after the death of the father of the movement.36 Prinsterer was the leader of a political group that held to
34 Abraham Kuyper and James D. Bratt, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, (Grand Rapids: Carlisle: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1998), 5. 35 Peter S. Heslam, and Abraham Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism, (Grand Rapids: Carlisle: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1998), 34. 36 The father of the Réveil was the poet William Bilderdijk (1756-1831). After his death, the reigns of leadership went to his protégés, Isaac de Costa, a converted Jew, and G. Groen van Prinsterer, the secretary of the Cabinet and archivist of the royal records. Though those who were members of the Réveil never seceded from the state-controlled Dutch Reformed Church they did partially support the Afscheiding. Additionally, through a process of transformation, the Réveil would become the Confessional and Anti- revolutionary party. One of the catalysts that caused the formation of the Réveil was Supernaturalism. Bavinck writes that Supranaturalism is deistic in its theology, Pelagian in its anthropology, Arian in its Christology, moralizing in its soteriology, and collegialistic in its ecclesiology. It is easy to see, therefore, the difficulties that the Reformed church would have as it struggled against such thought. Another school of thought that the Réveil fought against was the Groningen School which began with a group of theologians who were influenced by Schleiermacher and who pleaded for a theology of the heart. In pushing back against Calvinistic understanding as foreign imported thought, the Groningers emphasized national character, making its heroes the Dutch humanists Erasmus and Hugo Grotius. For the Groningen theologians education was a central point and revelation was but the education of mankind into a state of conformity with God. In 1867 Groningen theologians organized a separate association for influencing Church 16 anti-revolutionary ideals. After his death, Kuyper took over the leadership of this political group in 1877. Following his return from recovering from a nervous breakdown, he was to lead this group for forty years.37 One of the catalysts that pushed Kuyper’s group into the limelight and helped to develop it as the first modern political party in the
Netherlands38 were debates in the 1870s concerning the funding of Christian schools in the Netherlands. Prior to the Anti-revolutionary Party forming under Kuyper in 1878,
Dutch political parties were nothing more than loosely associated groups of individuals that held particular political ideals in common.39
Shortly following the formation of the Anti-revolutionary Party, Kuyper was instrumental in founding the Free University of Amsterdam, a university that would call
Bavinck many times throughout his lifetime. The formation of the university had its background in the school debates that also played a part in the establishment of the Anti- revolutionary Party. There was a growing discontentment among both Catholics and orthodox Protestants concerning the predominance of theologians that belonged to
elections, in distinction from groups such as the Moderns and the orthodox. Organized under the name of Het Evangelie they became known as the Evangelicals. For more information about the Réveil and other schools of theological thought see: Bavinck, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands;” Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America; and Praamsma, Let Christ Be King: Reflections on the Life and Times of Abraham Kuyper. 37 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 34. 38 In 1848 a new constitution in the Netherlands was ratified. The result of this constitution was to make full ministerial responsibility the base for all political work. From that point on Parliament consisted of two chambers, the First Chamber, which was to be made up of representatives chosen by provincial states, and the Second Chamber, which was made up of members who were elected by the electorate. The Second Chamber held greater importance as it received the rights of amendments, interpretation, and inquiry. This new manner in organizing the government allowed for groups such as the Anti-revolutionary Party to form. For more information see: Kuyper and Bratt, Abraham Kuyper, 1-16. 39 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 45. 17
Groningen and Modern Schools of thought who taught in the theological faculties at state-run universities.40 This discontent prompted the founding of a university that would be free from state control. Its founding helped to radically change the shape of higher education in the Netherlands.41
Kuyper was the university’s first Rector Magnificus (Chancellor) and he taught theology from its establishment in 1880 until he became the Prime Minister of the
Netherlands in 1901.42 In addition to teaching at the university, Kuyper continued to work as the chief editor of De Standaard (The Standard), a daily newspaper that he founded in 1872 and would continue to edit for almost fifty years.43 In addition, Kuyper launched a weekly religious journal, De Heraut (The Herald), of which he was the
40 Modern Theology attempted to present Christianity in harmony with a modern view of the world, and in this way it bore resemblance not only to liberal Protestantism but also to English and American Unitarianism. The Modern School underwent two main phases, an intellectual phase, and an ethical phase. Within the intellectualist form of modernism there was an attempt to combine naturalism and Christianity. A split was soon seen within the group. Moving away from an intellectualist focus some theologians took a more ethical approach. The Kantian idea of religious faith not being found in reason but within the moral nature of man soon took footing. Ethical theology took its own place among the different schools of thought. For the Ethical theologians, man could know and understand the truth not by reason and intellect but by his soul, heart, and conscience in his capacity as a true moral being. The Ethical theologians, therefore, took a more mediating stance among the other schools. Not only did they sympathize with the Réveil to an extent but they also shared some thought with the Groningers as both groups were influenced by Schleiermacher. Additionally, the Ethical theologians were adverse to extremes and had a tendency to appreciate different points of view simultaneously. Praamsma states that this tendency can be seen in the Ethical theologians’ reactions to rationalism and supernaturalism. For more information see: Praamsma, Let Christ Be King, 34; Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 46-48; Bavinck, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands”; Eldred Cornelius Vanderlaan, Protestant Modernism in Holland, (London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1924); Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century. 41 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 48. 42 Kuyper and Bratt, Abraham Kuyper, 15. 43 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 2. 18 editor.44 In this way, Kuyper helped to introduce mass press to the Netherlands as a way to spread ideas and influence the reading public. Heslam describes Kuyper’s style of journalistic writing as that of a military commander, summoning up the courage of his followers and pointing them in the way that they are to go, but also, showing himself to be ruthless and merciless towards his opponents.45
Besides interactions with Kuyper on a general political level, Bavinck’s main interactions with Kuyper were in the area of church unification. After the Secession in
1834, change continued to happen in the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1886 Kuyper led another major secession from the state church. This group, known as the Doleantie, understood its separation differently than the original secession. Bavinck writes that the members of the Afscheiding understood themselves to be a new church while the members of the Doleantie considered themselves to be the true original church that renounced obedience to the illegal Synodical government imposed in 1816 under William
I.46 In other words, the Doleantie regarded themselves as being identical to the
Established Church rather than having established a new church.
Through the illustration above Bavinck is seen standing alongside the public figure of
Kuyper. He exemplifies the same active and public Christian lifestyle that his better- known contemporary is renowned for. It is in the light of his public life that his theological work is to be viewed.
44 Ibid. 45 Ibid, 38. 46 Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism,” 2. 19
It was in uniting these two secessionist groups that Bavinck worked closely with
Kuyper. Prior to the unification, Bavinck argued that the future of the Reformed Church and Reformed theology rested on the success of a union, he expressed hope that there could be unification not only for the Afscheiding and the Doleantie but also for the Dutch
Reformed Church.47 He stated that “the Reformed Churches should never rest until the brethren belonging to the same house are all reunited in love and peace under one roof.”48
1892 marked the unification between the Afscheiding and the Doleantie, with unification bringing about the formation of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland, the Reformed
Churches in the Netherlands.49
In the process of unification, Bavinck and Kuyper’s friendship was formed and developed, but the next challenge of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands would not leave their friendship unharmed. Gleason describes Bavinck’s relationship with
Kuyper at the beginning of 1896 as one of a confidant and personal friend but by 1899 he states that according to Bavinck’s official Dutch biographer there was a drastic change in how the two men related.50 Though their friendship was not destroyed it did not emerge unmarred and it never returned to what it once was.51 The question of whether to train the unified pastors at Kampen or the Free University was one of great contention.
47 Bavinck, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands,” 228. 48 Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism,” 13. 49 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 51. 50 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 231. 51 Bavinck and Kuyper enjoyed an extensive correspondence and friendship. On the basis of this correspondence it has been noted that there were three distinct periods in their relationship, a time mostly marked by independence (1880-92), a time of intense cooperation (1892-1899), and a time where Bavinck pulled away from Kuyper (1899- 1918). It is in this last period that Bavinck became more critical of Kuyper. For more information see: Bolt, A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck's Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi, 143. 20
Unfortunately, the issue was never fully resolved despite the work that Bavinck put into mediating the two sides. Rather than remaining hidden in an office and contemplating theological and philosophical concepts Bavinck brought his thought into the public realm.
Pastor, Professor, and Politician
Gleason notes that after studying at Leiden, great hesitancy was shown by Bavinck’s church’s leaders when he returned to his family home in Kampen with the desire to become a pastor within the Secession church.52 Afraid of the liberal education that
Bavinck had received, the church required him to submit himself to candidate exams at the Theological Seminary in Kampen.53 Once he passed these exams Bavinck was ordained and became a pastor within the secessionist church. Despite Bavinck serving as pastor for only one year, that year was instrumental for the young man. Gleason writes that working at his pastorate in Franeker revived Bavinck’s spirit.54 During this time,
Bavinck not only received calls to serve other congregations but he also received two calls from the newly established Free University of Amsterdam.55
Professor
Though not as well-known as Kuyper in the English speaking western world, Bavinck was a highly skilled theologian. Unlike Kuyper, who was concerned about indicating in bold strokes what direction his followers should take, Heslam argues that Bavinck was
52 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 65. 53 Ibid, 65. 54 Ibid, 69-96. 55 Ibid, 91. 21 more concerned with giving careful scholarly consideration to each theological position.56 As has been noted, Bavinck was shaped by deep pietistic Reformed spirituality and by his time at Leiden University which was known for its scientific approach to theology.57
Bolt argues that the tension between Bavinck’s commitment to orthodox theology and spirituality and his desire to understand and appreciate what he could about the modern world would be with him for his entire life and would play a role in his Reformed
Dogmatics.58 It has additionally been observed by Bolt that Bavinck took the modern philosophical thoughts of his day as well as the claims of geological and biological sciences with all seriousness.59 He was not afraid to work with modern thought and science as well as criticise it, however, it was not just his willingness but his “positive, presuppositional Calvinist response” to the different areas that marked him as a theologian.60 In this way, Bavinck sought a Trinitarian understanding of the joining and interaction of Christianity and culture. Bolt writes that in his desire to honour the theological and confessional tradition of Reformed thought Bavinck also sought to incorporate what was best and true about pietism and modernism into a Christian worldview.61
After his year as pastor in Franeker, Bavinck accepted a professorship at the
Theological Seminary at Kampen. Beginning in 1883, Bavinck was assigned to teach
56 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 119. 57 Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, 13. 58 Ibid, 13, 14. 59 Ibid, 15. 60 Nelson D. Kloosterman, “The Legacy of Herman Bavinck,” New Horizons, 2008, accessed October 03, 2017, http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=577. 61 Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, 15. 22 dogmatics, polemic, ethics, encyclopedia, classics, mythology, philosophy, and fourth- year Greek.62 Despite a large amount of teaching required from him, Venema highlights that Bavinck was much loved by his students for his modesty, eloquence, and extraordinary breadth of knowledge.63 Though much loved by his students, Bavinck’s time at Kampen was not without its struggles. In addition to the time and effort spent teaching, writing, editing articles for the church’s journal, working towards the unification of the two secessions, and trying to resolve the School Issue, Gleason notes that tension was often present between Bavinck and his fellow professor, Lucas
Lindeboom (1854-1933).64 Gleason highlights that throughout the rest of his career,
Bavinck would get in various conflicts with Lindeboom especially as he tried to unify the churches and bring about a peaceful solution to the School Issue.65
Unlike Lindeboom who was in opposition to Kuyper in both thought and action, there were those that despite being followers of Kuyper’s thought they were not without criticism.66 Bristley and Bolt note that Bavinck was also critical of some of Kuyper’s
62 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 94. 63 Cornelis P. Venema, “Herman Bavinck: His Life and Theology,” New Horizons, 2008, accessed October 3, 2017, http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=576. 64 Despite being close theologically one of the reasons for tension between Lindeboom and Bavinck was due to their conceptions of Kuyper. Bavinck was in support of Kuyper, uniting the churches, and finding a solution to the school issue. Lindeboom, on the other hand, was staunchly against Kuyper. He argued that Kuyper’s arguments would bring about a secularization of theology, would return the church back to the unrest that they had endured under the State Church, and that Kuyper’s theology would be viewed too much as a science and would separate theology from a center of faith. For more information regarding tensions between Bavinck and Lindeboom see: Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 95, 107-113, 183-184, 187. 65 Ibid. 66 Men such as Hendricus Beuker and Foppe M. Ten Hoor who would immigrate to the United States. These criticisms included Kuyper not always being scriptural and being too speculative on some points such as his positions on justification from eternity, the object of theology, and baptism on basis of presumptive regeneration. 23 points, though he often worked at mediating, as could be seen in the School Issue where
Bavinck proposed a joining of the two institutions despite Kampen’s focus on practical training for ministry versus the Free University’s focus on the science of theology.67 In these regards, Bavinck and Kuyper’s relationship became one of friendship and respect in the common cause of uniting the churches. Bristley and Bolt emphasize their argument by writing that Bavinck was not a mere follower of Kuyper, rather he was Kuyper’s intellectual equal.68
During Bavinck’s time at Kampen, he received three more calls to the Free University of Amsterdam. If he had followed any one of those calls it is unknown whether he would have completed his Reformed Dogmatics as the first editions of all four volumes were produced at the Theological Seminary (1895, 1897, 1898, 1901). The first call to the Free
University was in 1888. Gleason writes that Bavinck declined in hope that the churches would soon be unified, for he knew that if he was to go it could have jeopardized the chances of church unification.69 He was asked to be considered for a professorship at the university in 1894, and after much agonizing, he asked for his name to be withdrawn from consideration.70 It was not until 1902 when Kuyper left to fulfill his duties as Prime
Minister that Bavinck accepted the call to the Free University and the chair of dogmatics which Kuyper vacated.71
Bristley and Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck, 18. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 169-179. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid, 293 24
Unfortunately for the Theological Seminary at Kampen, Bavinck did not leave alone.
Along with one of his close friends, Pieter Bieteterveld, who also received and accepted a call to the Free University, Bavinck left the small town of Kampen with over half of the students of the theological seminary.72 Bavinck had spent twenty years teaching at the seminary, he had married, seen the birth of his daughter, published his magnum opus, seen the unification and formation of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and fought for a solution to the School Issue while at Kampen. No doubt the decision to leave was marked with great prayer and consideration.
According to Gleason during his time as Professor at the Free University of
Amsterdam, Bavinck became known and loved as a preacher and speaker.73 He was asked to deliver the Stone Lectures at Princeton (1908-09). Joining Kuyper, who delivered his Stone Lectures in 1898 on Calvinism, Bavinck spoke on The Philosophy of
Revelation.74 The Stone Lectures marked the second visit that Bavinck made to America.
His public faith, therefore, was not relegated to a small section of society, nor to the
Netherlands as a whole. Rather, Bavinck’s public faith was felt beyond the borders of his country. Was his concept of sanctification in line with the extent to which he made his active Christian life visible as a standard of excellence?
72 Ibid; Theological University Reformed Churches, “History,” Theological University Kampen, accessed January 12, 2018, https://en.tukampen.nl/portal- informatiepagina/history. 73 Gleason, Herman Bavinck, 325. 74 Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 10. 25
Politician
Alongside his work as professor and speaker during his time in Amsterdam, Bavinck was also an active member of the Anti-revolutionary Party. Gleason writes that in hopes that he would gain another term as Prime Minister, Kuyper convinced Bavinck to take over as the president of the Party.75 This was a temporary situation as Kuyper did not win a successive term; Bavinck served as president of the Party for two years from 1905 until
1907 when Kuyper resumed control.76
Due in part to scandal surrounding Kuyper and various factions within the Party itself, Bavinck resigned from the Central Committee.77 Despite his resignation, Bavinck’s role as a politician was not over. In 1911 the province of South Holland elected Bavinck to be a member of the First Chamber of the Dutch Parliament where shortly thereafter he was elected as president of that body.78 Gleason argues that though he spent less than a decade in his position in parliament Bavinck played an important role in shaping the
Netherlands. In 1919 he gave his last speech to Parliament.79
Legacy of Herman Bavinck
From a history of struggle and desire to live out a Reformed understanding of faith
Bavinck was born. Truly he inherited the deep faith of his forefathers. Bolt writes that
Bavinck’s understanding of Christianity was rooted in Reformed theology, continued
75 Ibid, 375-386. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid, 389. 78 Ibid, 393-94. 79 Ibid, 396. 26 along the lines of Protestant orthodoxy in the seventieth and eighteenth centuries, focused on the Bible as it was understood, believed, and lived out by the church, set in the universal human experience of living before God, and had its foundations in Holy Spirit inspired faith.80
Additionally, Bolt writes that for Bavinck the faith upon which all else rests has to be a contemporary faith, a faith that addresses contemporary challenges and meets the contemporary spiritual needs.81 Bavinck’s understanding of faith is no doubt a significant part of why he sought to understand how Christianity and modern society related. In his actions as an academic and a politician, one sees Bavinck living out his understanding of faith and culture. Bavinck understood God to be sovereign in every area of life and knowledge,82 the acknowledgement and preservation of the belief that God is God over all creatures were essential to his efforts as a theologian, philosopher, ethicist, and politician. Flowing from this understanding is a fundamental theme of Bavinck’s Neo-
Calvinistic thought, grace restoring nature.83 Bavinck and Kuyper were in agreement in this regard.84
Bavinck’s influence was not limited to the Netherlands. Through emigration to the
United States and other countries, the Neo-Calvinistic thought of Bavinck and Kuyper made its way into the lives of the Dutch immigrants and those with whom they interacted.85 Though Kuyper was a large figure in the development of the modern Dutch
80 Bolt, “The Bavinck Recipe for Theological Cake.” 81 Ibid, 15. 82 Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism.” 83 Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics, 18. 84 Venema, “Herman Bavinck: His Life and Theology.” 85 Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America, 14. 27 state Bratt argues that it was Bavinck’s spirit that would be the model for the following generations of Dutch Reformed scholars.86
Though Bavinck is most well-known for his Reformed Dogmatics his work was not limited to dogmatic theology; nevertheless, he did exhibit great skill in this area. Among many academic interests, he worked in the area of the development of religious thought.
This can be seen through his writing on the Mental, Religious, and Social Forces in the
Netherlands,87 an article concerning Recent Dogmatic thought in the Netherlands,88 and the Influence of the Protestant Reformation on the Moral and Religious Condition of
Communities and Nations.89 Bavinck also worked in philosophy, as is seen in his work
Biblical and Religious Philosophy,90 and the Stone Lectures (1908-1909) on the
Philosophy of Revelation.91
Bavinck additionally did work on Calvin, examining the Reformer’s doctrine of the
Lord’s Supper92 as well as his understanding of common grace.93 Bavinck built upon
86 Ibid, 30-31. 87 Herman Bavinck, Mental, Religious and Social Forces in the Netherlands, A General View of the Netherlands 17, (The Hague: Commercial Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce, 1915). 88 Bavinck, “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands.” 89 Herman Bavinck, “The Influence of the Protestant Reformation on the Moral and Religious Condition of Communities and Nations,” in Alliance of the Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian System: Proceedings of the Fifth General Council, Toronto, 1892, (London: Publication Committee of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1892). 90 Herman Bavinck, Biblical and Religious Psychology, trans. H. Hanko, (Grand Rapids: Protestant Reformed Theological School, 1974). 91 Herman Bavinck, The Philosophy of Revelation: The Stone Lectures for 1908- 1909, Princeton Theological Seminary, (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909). 92 Herman Bavinck, “Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 19, (2008). 93 Herman Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” in Calvin and the Reformation: Four Studies, by Herman Bavinck, E. Doumergue, and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, ed. August Lang and William Park Armstrong, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1909). 28
Calvin’s doctrine in Common Grace where he argues against the Roman Catholic idea of superadded grace, analyzes Anabaptist and modernist thought, and reasons that common grace sustains the creation order while salvific grace redeems, restores, and transforms creation and culture.94 In regards to Calvin, Bavinck also gives A Lecture on the
Occasion of his 400th Birthday95 and looks at the Future of Calvinism.96
Bavinck penned articles in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia on the topics of death and the fall. In the former, he writes in concern to the theological and scriptural conception of death, the meaning of death, the hope that God gives over death, the spiritual significance of death, and death in regards to non-Christian religions and science.97 In the latter, he not only looks at the biblical text concerning the fall but he also looks at the passage (Gen. 3:1-14) in regard to the Old and New Testaments, as well as in regards to evolution and the character of the fall.98
To have a solid understanding of the different areas in which Bavinck worked and wrote his Essays on Religion, Science, and Society is an excellent place in which to begin. The essays cover the topics of philosophy of faith, the essence of Christianity, theology and religious studies, psychology of religion, Christianity and natural science, evolution, Christian principles and social relationships, inequality, trends in psychology,
94 Herman Bavinck, “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common Grace,’” trans. R. C. Van Leeuwen, Calvin Theological Journal 24, no. 1 (1989). 95 Herman Bavinck, “John Calvin: A Lecture on the Occasion of his 400th Birthday, July 10, 1509—1909,” trans. John Bolt, The Bavinck Review 1 (2010). 96 Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism.” 97 Herman Bavinck, “Death,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, (Eerdmans, 1939). 98 Herman Bavinck, “The Fall,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr, (Eerdmans, 1939). 29 the unconscious, the primacy of the will or intellect, trends in pedagogy, classical education, beauty and aesthetics, as well as ethics and politics.99
Other works by Bavinck that have been translated into English include but are not limited to Foundations of Creation Theology;100 The Certainty of Faith;101 The Holy
Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration;102 The Problem of War;103 Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord;104 and General Biblical Principles and the Relevance of Concrete Mosaic Law for the Social Question Today.105 Also worthy of note is The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church in which Bavinck writes that the message held within Christianity should govern and sanctify all irrespective of geography, nationality, place, and time.106 In The Christian Family Bavinck works to give a Christian theology of marriage and the family, to do this he looks at the origins of marriage and family, the effects of sin, and assess historic Christian approaches to these
99 Herman Bavinck, Essays on Religion, Science, and Society, ed. John Bolt, trans. Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008). 100 Herman Bavinck, In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999). 101 Herman Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith, St. Catherines, (Ontario: Paideia Press, 1980). 102 Herman Bavinck, Saved by Grace: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration, ed. J. Mark Beach, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008). 103 Herman Bavinck, “The Problem of War,” trans. Stephen Voorwinde, The Banner of Truth, (1977). 104 Herman Bavinck, The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord, trans. John Dolfin, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Louis Kregel, 1922). 105 Herman Bavinck, “General Biblical Principles and the Relevance of Concrete Mosaic Law for the Social Question Today (1891),” Journal of Markets & Morality 13, no. 2 (2010). 106 Herman Bavinck, “The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church,” trans. John Bolt, Calvin Theological Journal 27, no. 2 (1992). 30 institutions.107 Within this work, he writes that the “moral health of society depends on the health of the family life.”108
Perhaps the most greatly anticipated work of Bavinck that is yet to be released into
English is Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics. Previously unpublished, Bavinck’s Reformed
Ethics is over 1,100 pages of handwritten manuscript. Due to the extent of the work and the data available from the manuscript itself, it is unable to be dated precisely, though
Dirk van Keulen suggests that Bavinck used his manuscript to teach during two main periods, 1884-886, and 1894-1895.109 This would place the time in which he worked on
Reformed Ethics to coincide with his Reformed Dogmatics which were first published in
1895, 1897, 1898, and 1901.110 The first volume, Created, Fallen, and Converted
Humanity111 will be released in August this year and is the first of three planned volumes.
The publisher writes that Reformed Ethics “explores the ethical and spiritual dimensions of key doctrines beyond that of Reformed Dogmatics. It mines the moral teachings of the early church and medieval and Puritan spirituality while addressing a variety of topics.”112 This work is sure to support and develop the concept of an active Christian life
107 Herman Bavinck, The Christian Family, ed. Stephen J. Grabill, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman, (Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2012). 108 Ibid, 134. 109 Dirk van Keulen, “Herman Bavinck's Reformed Ethics: Some Remarks about the Unpublished Manuscripts in the Libraries of Amsterdam and Kampen,” The Bavinck Review 1 (2010), 28-29. 110 Ibid, 32. 111 Herman Bavinck, Created, Fallen, and Converted Humanity, ed. John Bolt, vol. 1, Reformed Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). For further information concerning Bavinck’s work published both during his life time and posthumously see: Bristley and Bolt, Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck; “Herman Bavinck Bibliography,” The Bavinck Institute. 112 Baker Publishing Group, “Reformed Ethics, Volume 1,” Reformed Ethics, Volume 1 | Baker Publishing Group, accessed February 07, 2018, http://bakerpu- blishinggroup.com/books/reformed-ethics-volume-1/380940. 31 that is firmly rooted in theological understanding, a concept that is exemplified through
Bavinck’s life and works.
Though the publication of Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics may provide an academic conception of how one is to work out one’s sanctification it does not remove the apparent gap between his active Christian lifestyle and his work found in Reformed Dogmatics.
Due to this gap between his life and work, which will be seen with more clarity in chapter two, it will be necessary to determine how this gap can be bridged while still remaining in harmony with his thought as a whole.
Bavinck’s legacy endures, not just in matters of theological doctrine but also in the way that he engaged thought and society. He was open to understanding diverse ideas as he believed that there could be some truth found in them. He knew that to properly critique a thought it had to be understood, but he also knew to approach critique with grace. We will attempt to engage a critique of his work with the same rigour and grace, as we turn to an exploration of specific aspects of doctrine.
This chapter has introduced broadly the public Christian life and the ethical nature of
Bavinck’s person and work. This not only sets the context for understanding Bavinck’s thought, but raises the question of whether his theological work was coherent with, and supported, the ethical nature of his public life. In the following chapter, we will examine
Bavinck’s theological understanding of justification and sanctification. This will highlight whether a gap between the two exists in the context of his theological work, and if so, begin to suggest how such a gap might be bridged.
32
Chapter Two:
Bavinck’s Theology of Justification and Sanctification
Having established the life and context of Herman Bavinck, the focus of this chapter will be to establish an understanding of Bavinck’s theology of justification and sanctification. Through an examination of these doctrines, we will be able to assess the answer to the question of whether or not Bavinck's theology aligned with his active
Christian life. Additionally, the legal and moral elements of Bavinck's thought will be considered. Through the assessment of justification and sanctification, it can be determined whether there is harmony in the legal and moral natures of his thought. This exploration will demonstrate that there is a disconnection between his doctrines of justification and sanctification, which may be addressed by a more developed theology of adoption.
Justification will be the first doctrine examined, before considering Bavinck’s theology of sanctification. Laying this groundwork will be important for the remaining chapters of this thesis as the relationship between justification, adoption, and sanctification in Bavinck’s work will be considered. Adoption will be proposed as the solution that bridges the gap between Bavinck’s life and his conception of active sanctification. It will also allow for the legal and ethical natures of justification and sanctification to be highlighted and come together in a way that harmonizes with
Bavinck’s thought.
33
Throughout the discussion on Bavinck’s understanding of justification and sanctification, the main focus will be on how he developed the doctrines in his mature theology of the Reformed Dogmatics. Although the final volume, where his main work on justification and sanctification are to be found, was written during his final years at the theological seminary in Kampen, almost twenty years before his death, it represents his mature theological reflections.113 Bavinck used the basis that he had developed to inform his understanding of the new philosophical, ethical, and practical issues that he would confront while in Amsterdam and as a Politician.114
As with other doctrines, Bavinck attempted to understand justification and sanctification through the illumination of scripture.115 Burger writes that in addition to having scripture as his foundation, Bavinck worked from a Trinitarian and Christological basis.116 It is this Christological basis that is seen especially when working through
Bavinck’s understanding of justification and sanctification. It has been suggested by
Burger that one of the important motifs of Bavinck’s theology is the unio mystica.117 It is especially prominent in his discussions of justification and sanctification as he understands that Christ is both the believer’s holiness and their righteousness. Without communion with Christ then there would be no benefits of salvation because there would
113 Bolt, introduction to Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, 14. 114 van Keulen, “Herman Bavinck's Reformed Ethics,” 56; James Eglinton, “How Many Herman Bavincks? De Gemeene Genade and the ‘Two Bavincks’ Hypothesis,” in The Kuyper Center Review, Volume 2: Revelation and Common Grace, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). 115 Eugène Paul Heideman, Herman Bavinck, and Heinrich Emil Brunner, The Relation of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck. Proefschrift, Etc., (Van Gorcum & Co.; Dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke: Assen, 1959), 219. 116 Burger, Being in Christ, 89. 117 Ibid, 87. 34 be no salvation. Christ is the believer’s salvation, he or she must be in communion with the whole of Christ, both works and person, for they cannot be separated.118
Burger notes that it is in Bavinck’s emphasis on the significance of both Christ’s active and passive obedience that the importance of the whole of Christ’s life becomes clear.119 In this regard, it was not just Jesus’ suffering on the cross that has importance but His whole life. It is in His incarnate life, death, resurrection, and mediatory work at the right hand of the Father that together encompasses not only the whole life of salvation within us but also allows for the restoration of creation. Bavinck himself explicitly states that “Christ accomplished everything.”120 The concept of Christ’s importance will not only play a role in the connection between justification and sanctification but it will also add to the proposed solution of adoption as the manner in which the gaps can be bridged.
In his understanding of the different benefits that come from reconciliation, Bavinck comments that they are too numerous to mention. However, he does attempt to describe the benefits as comprising of six different groups. He sees these groups as being juridical
(i.e. justification and adoption), mystical (i.e. union with Christ), ethical (i.e. sanctification), moral (i.e. imitation of Christ), economic (i.e. the fulfillment of the Old
Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant), and physical (i.e. victory over sin and Satan).121
118 Ibid, 108. 119 Ibid, 110-111. 120 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 345. 121 Ibid, 451. 35
Justification
In this section, Bavinck’s theological construct of justification will be examined critically. Through this examination, we will be able to determine how sanctification relates to justification in Bavinck’s thought. We will argue that in Bavinck’s thought, salvation is established legally through justification, and is expressed both legally and morally in sanctification. However, the moral aspect of sanctification is neglected to the extent that the active life of the believer may be insufficiently supported in his theology.
The doctrine of adoption emerges as a proposed solution to the resulting gap between sanctification and justification. Bavinck appears conflicted on whether or not to present adoption as an aspect of justification or as a separate benefit of union with Christ.
Assessing Bavinck’s conception of adoption is necessary in order to determine if the proposal that adoption bridges the gaps raised can be in harmony with his life and work.
In his magnum opus, Bavinck holds closely to Calvin’s understanding of the inseparability of justification and sanctification.122 Bavinck points out that Calvin strove to keep justification and sanctification closely connected despite making a sharp distinction between the two doctrines.123 Bavinck follows in this line of thought when he later states that “[j]ustification and sanctification, accordingly, while distinct from each other, are not for a moment separated.”124
122 Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance, 68. 123 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 200. 124 Ibid, 249. 36
In the final form of his Institutes, Calvin works from a basis of the duplex gratia. In this understanding, the first grace is that of justification.125 For Calvin, justification by faith is reconciliation with God. In this regard, it consists of remission of sins when one is admitted into union with Christ.126 Therefore, justification is an act of God where through imputation, by the grace of God, the believer comes to participate in the righteousness of
Christ.127 Though other metaphors are used by Calvin, Gaffin holds that it is justification that is among the principle benefits of his understanding of union with Christ.128
Freedom from the Consequence of Sin
To understand the beauty of justification one must understand the seriousness of the punishment that should have belonged to humanity. Bavinck understood sin as breaking communion with God. Not only is it a spiritual death but it also deserves death.129 He argues that it not only corrupts humanity but corrupts the whole of the created order.130
Everything within creation, therefore, needs restoration that is found in the life and work of Christ and applied by the Spirit. It is a complete redemption; a redemption of the
125 Calvin writes that Christ has been given by the kindness of God and is possessed by faith. It is in this way that the believer obtains a twofold benefit, first, justification, and second, sanctification. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 3.11.1. 126 Ibid, 3.11.21. 127 J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 106-107. 128 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Justification and Union with Christ,” in Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis, by David W. A. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, The Calvin 500 Series, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2008), 253. 129 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 160. 130 Ibid. 37 whole person, both soul and body, from both sin and the eternal spiritual consequences of that sin.131
This forgiveness, this redemption and salvation, is not natural. Though Bavinck does not weaken his understanding of sin by equating it with guilt, he does understand guilt to be a consequence of sin.132 It is the removal of guilt, freedom from the consequence of sin, and forgiveness of sin that fills Bavinck with a sense of wonder at the grace of God and causes him to place justification at the first place of the benefits given in the covenant of grace.133 Therefore, justification is of central importance to salvation in the theology of
Bavinck.
According to Bavinck, the idea of eternal punishment is natural, for nature knows no forgiveness and time cannot be rewritten. Bavinck writes that “[w]hat has happened can never be undone.”134 It is “in religion [that] human beings seek deliverance from evil and the acquisition of what to them is the highest good.”135 It is in Christ that the believer not only finds freedom from sin but also a renewed relationship with God. It was not just to bear humanity’s punishment that Christ came. He also obtained the righteousness and life that Adam needed to secure by his obedience. In other words, Christ’s obedience takes us not to the point of Adam and Eve in the garden but to the end of the road that Adam was to walk as humanity’s representative head.136
131 Ibid, 379. 132 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 179. 133 Ibid, 179. 134 Ibid, 181. 135 Bavinck, Prolegomena, 286. 136 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 326; Bavinck, God and Creation, 565. 38
Forensic Justification
Bavinck knew that in order to have restoration of communion with God then it must be God who takes away the person’s guilt and opens up the way to Himself. If He was to wait for people to make themselves worthy, either in part or in whole, then there would be no restoration and no salvation for humanity.137 It is because of Bavinck’s high understanding of the severity of sin, the holiness of God, and the great love that He has for people that causes Bavinck to emphasize justification. He writes that justification is
“the article on which the church either stands or falls.”138 If it was the work of humanity, their sanctification, which salvation rested upon then not only would there be no assurance but there would also be a violation of Christ. According to Bavinck, this means that Christ’s “unique, all-encompassing, and all-sufficient mediatorial office” would be violated, He would be put on the same plane as all other humans, and God would be robbed of His honour.139
Justification is, therefore, a matter of judgement. In accordance with the law, God had to condemn humanity. However, in Christ, He forgives believer’s sins without charging them anything. Bavinck writes that God “accords to us divine compassion and fatherly sympathy in place of wrath and punishment.”140 It is clearly seen that justification is a forensic act within Bavinck’s understanding. Burger argues that it is best to interpret
Bavinck as understanding justification as being caused juridically (forensically) by
137 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 205. 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid, 206. 39
Christ’s death and also mystically by His resurrection; the believer’s resurrection is connected to Christ’s resurrection.141
The consequence of sin and the notion of sin itself highlights the legal nature of justification in that it is the acquittal of sin through Christ. This legal conception cannot be considered alone for there must be an aspect of salvation that showcases the ethical nature of no longer being tied to sin. The connection between the legal reality of justification and the ethical outworking of sanctification must be considered. This is important as it relates to the Christian life of the believer. Furthermore, it is also important in the attempt to answer the question of whether or not Bavinck’s theology aligns with his own public life.
In addition to the focus and importance placed on the forensic elements of justification Bavinck also places significance on the role of faith. However, this does not mean that justification is done by a “work” of faith. Bavinck is adamant in his writing when he says that “if faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is,
Christ) would totally lose its value.”142 Faith is not, therefore, a work but a relinquishment of all work and a complete and total trust in God.143 Bavinck continues in this vein when he writes that if faith was the ground for justification then God would be contenting Himself with a lesser righteousness than that which He has demanded.144 It is solely in Christ that justification can be found.
141 Burger, Being in Christ, 113. 142 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 211. 143 Ibid, 144 Ibid, 212. 40
Bavinck sees faith as being two parts to the same thing. It is both the belief that people are sinners and also believing that in grace God justifies all sinful people for the sake of Christ.145 There is, therefore, an intimate connection between justification and faith.146 Faith, for Bavinck, is not the material or formal cause of justification, nor a condition or instrument of justification but the very act of accepting Christ and His benefits.147 It is a consciousness that Christ is the believer’s Lord and that he or she is His possession.148 Ortlund writes that “To Bavinck's mind, justifying faith is self-divesting, self-emptying, and self-renouncing, yet it is also (simultaneously) Christ-directed, Christ- reliant, and Christ- trusting. It is passive and active.”149 It is therefore not faith that is the ground of the believer’s justification but rather the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that is the grounding for the believer’s justification.150 The Christological element of justification is, therefore, instrumental to Bavinck’s theology of justification. This centering on Christ will also be apparent in the discussion of sanctification.
Active and Passive Justification
Election and calling have an important place in Bavinck’s understanding of justification, just as it did for Calvin.151 Bavinck writes that election proper has as its purpose holiness, adoption as children, salvation, eternal life, and conformity to Christ.152
145 Ibid, 191. 146 In his chapter on justification Bavinck takes Luther into great consideration. This is especially seen in regard to the relationship between faith and justification. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 189-199. 147 Ibid, 221-222. 148 Ibid, 222. 149 Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 254. 150 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 214. 151 Calvin, Institutes, 3.21. 152 Bavinck, God and Creation, 347. 41
It is in this regard that one can begin to see elements of active and passive justification in
Bavinck’s thought. For Bavinck active justification occurs in the internal calling. This is when God, by His word and Spirit “effectually calls sinners, convicts them of sin, drives them out toward Christ, and prompts them to find forgiveness and life in him.”153
What of passive justification? If active justification in Bavinck’s mind is something that causes the sinner to reach out in faith that the promise of forgiveness is realized and can be true what is passive justification? Passive justification happens once the sinner believes the word of God and receives Christ along with His benefits. In this moment
Bavinck writes that passive justification occurs in that God acquits believers in their conscience and bears witness through His Spirit that the sinner is no longer held to sin but is a believer and therefore a child of God and an heir to eternal life.154 Consequently, passive justification is predominantly the assurance of one’s salvation. This assurance is closely connected to adoption, as it is assurance of one’s adoption as a child.155 Not only does passive justification connect with adoption but it also has implications for sanctification. It is due, in part, to the assurance of one’s salvation, found in passive justification, that one does the good works that are a part of sanctification.156 Other connections between justification and sanctification will be looked at further in this chapter.
153 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 505-507; Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 219. 154 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 219. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid, 229, 257. 42
Bavinck argues that the logical distinction between active and passive justification offers three advantages in regards to theological thought.157 Firstly, he argues that the distinction enables the maintenance of the concept that God is gracious and abounding in steadfast love and that in Christ complete righteousness is given.158 In other words, he is saying that the logical distinction between active and passive justification emphasizes that the righteousness brought by Christ does not need to be added to by believers. In this way, Bavinck is arguing against nomism.
Secondly, Bavinck writes that the distinction aids in the explanation of where the believer derives the freedom and boldness to take hold of the gift of justification.159
Therefore, it is not the person who after self-examination comes to the judgement seat of
God in order to receive forgiveness due to the genuineness of his or her faith. Bavinck states that it is rather God who comes to the person in the gospel with the universal offer of grace and gives the right to accept the forgiveness of sins with a believing heart.160
Bavinck reiterates his point by saying that “the basis of faith exists outside of us in the promise of God.”161
Thirdly, Bavinck argues that the distinction between active and passive justification makes it possible for faith to be regarded as “simultaneously a receptive organ and an active power.”162 Bavinck argues against the concept that faith might be the material or formal cause of justification, just as he also argues against faith being the condition or
157 Ibid, 220-223. 158 Ibid, 220-221. 159 Ibid, 221. 160 Ibid; Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 523. 161 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 221. 162 Ibid. 43 instrument of justification. He continues in this line by stating that faith is the act of accepting Christ and His benefits as He is offered to one.163 Additionally, Bavinck writes that one must not think that faith is merely an ascent or knowledge of something that has happened, rather it must be a living and active faith.164
Christ is the basis of justification, but the faith in which one receives union with Him must be a faith that is active and as such includes and produces good works. It is not the works, therefore, that produce justification, nor is it one’s act of faith, rather, it is Christ that brings justification.165 Though what Bavinck is saying is true, Christ is the bringer of justification, does Bavinck’s strong emphasis on the forensic concept of justification overshadow the moral nature of sanctification? If this is the case then a downplayed notion sanctification will not be reflective of the active Christian life that Bavinck portrayed in his own life.
Bavinck recognizes that while there is a logical order to this understanding of active and passive justification there is no temporal significance. He says this because he is certain that while there is a priority of order both are coupled together in the simultaneousness that they occur within time and as such, they cannot be separated.166
The matter of the time in which justification occurs is of great importance to Bavinck.
This is due in part to the difference in thought between Kuyper and himself.167 Though
163 Ibid, 222. 164 Ibid. 165 Ibid, 222-223; Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 524. 166 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 219. 167 At the time of Bavinck’s writing there was a debate in Holland concerning the question of whether justification took place in time or in eternity. Kuyper argued for the latter, he taught that justification was from eternity. With his focus on the priority of grace he held the position that justification must proceed faith as eternity proceeds time. It is not, therefore, justification that takes place in time but the believer’s self-conscious 44 both were neo-Calvinists the question of when the sinner became justified was a point of contention between the two thinkers.
The question of when justification occurs is complex. Does justification occur in eternity or in time? Is it at the death or resurrection of Christ? Or is it in the preaching of the gospel? Is it before faith or at the same time as faith? Does it go alongside faith or come after faith? Bavinck sought to answer these questions.168 Though Bavinck acknowledges that justification could not occur within time if it was not securely established within eternity, he does not believe that this makes it logical to speak of an eternal justification or even of a justification from eternity.169 Bavinck understands justification to be effected in time. Christ’s work was prepared for in eternity and reached its goal in eternity, however, it is objectively realized in the life of Jesus and subjectively in the believer. 170 Bavinck, ever the mediator, affirmed with Kuyper that the benefits of the covenant of grace are established in eternity even though he rejected the concept of eternal justification as he believed that it was not taught in scripture and could be used for many other doctrines.171
awareness of the reality that is within time. Bavinck argued against this concept as will be seen in the coming discussion. For more information concerning the differing conceptions of justification occurring in time or eternity in Kuyper and Bavinck’s theologies see: Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 260-261; A. T. B. McGowan, “Justification and the Ordo Salutis,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2006), 152. 168 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 214-219. 169 Ibid, 216. 170 Burger, Being in Christ, 90. 171 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 216; McGowan, “Justification and the Ordo Salutis,” 152. 45
Justification and Adoption
Having considered some elements within Bavinck’s thought concerning justification, adoption must be examined. For it is at this stage that Bavinck brings up adoption himself in regard to justification though only briefly. Through a treatment of adoption in relation to justification, adoption can be assessed. This assessment will allow for us to determine if adoption can be brought into Bavinck’s theology while still remaining consistent with his thought. Moreover, this will allow for adoption to be considered as the solution to certain gaps not only found within Bavinck’s thought but also between his theology and life. For this reason, we will return to adoption as a possible solution to the moral and legal gaps that are present.
For Bavinck justification and adoption are connected. Adoption is one of the aspects of life which flows from justification.172 Bavinck states that a person is ungodly in an ethical sense but because of the righteousness of Christ the person becomes righteous in the legal sense. He flows on from this statement and says that “God declares sinners righteous, adopts them as children, promises them Christ and all his benefits; for that reason, they are called righteous and will one day gain possession of all the treasures of grace.”173 This aspect of the declaration of being righteous in Christ is closely connected with adoption in Bavinck’s thought as can be seen in this quote. This conviction is accentuated in the concept of passive justification in which “God acquits believers in
172 Bavinck lists being freed from fear and dread, having peace with God, no longer being under the law, standing in freedom, no longer being a servant, and having the hope of righteousness in addition to having the spirit of adoption and being heirs of God as aspects of life that is carried with justification. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 186. 173 Ibid, 213. 46 their conscience and by his Spirit bears witness with their own spirits that they are children of God and heirs of eternal life.”174
It is in this chapter that Bavinck makes his biggest statement concerning adoption. He writes that the distinct, yet not separate, rich and glorious benefit of being attributed the right to eternal life is linked to justification.175 Bavinck equates the adoption as children with the right to eternal life.176 He uses this opportunity to discuss differences between sonship in John, and in Paul, though for the purpose of his argument he focuses primarily on Paul. He writes that while an ethical sonship, as it occurs in John, belongs in
“connection with regeneration and sanctification,” huiothesia, as it occurs in Paul, is spoken of in a juridical sense and as such should be spoken of in connection with justification.177 This again brings to the fore the importance of adoption in relation to this doctrine. Bavinck writes that it is those that have “been pronounced free from the guilt and punishment of sin are thereby simultaneously adopted as children and counted as objects of God’s fatherly love.”178
Unfortunately, this section on adoption only covers one-and-a-half pages. If he had deemed to expand on the concepts that he highlights in regards to adoption, such as believers being put in the same position as Christ, and how on the basis of Christ’s righteousness believers receive forgiveness of sins and adoption as children,179 then he may of clarified how adoption is connected with justification and subsequently with
174 Ibid, 219. 175 Ibid, 226. 176 Ibid. 177 Ibid, 226. 178 Ibid, 227. 179 Ibid, 226-227. 47 sanctification. Additionally, Bavinck may have been able to clarify what in this section appears to be a contradiction within his thought. The contradiction lies in how he sees adoption. Is it apart of justification or a separate benefit of union with Christ?
Bavinck writes that justification is the legal act of God by which He removes guilt and punishment of sin and confers upon the believer the right to eternal life. He claims that
Rebirth, faith, and conversion are the conditions for the following benefits of the covenant of grace: they are the only way by which humans can receive and enjoy the forgiveness of sins and adoption as children of God, peace and joy, sanctification and glorification. Of all these benefits, first place is due to justification, for by it we understand that gracious judicial act of God by which he acquits humans of all the guilt and punishment of sin and confers on them the right to eternal life. 180
Seen here, along with Bavinck’s assertion that “[g]iven the justification that believers receive, they are immediately freed from all dread and fear… They are no longer servants but children, having the spirit of adoption and therefore also being heirs of God,”181 adoption appears to be considered as an aspect of justification. Additionally, his latter statement that “in justification we have been granted peace with God, sonship, free and certain access to the throne of grace, freedom from the law, and independence from the world,”182 also affirms this manner of understanding adoption as a positive aspect of justification.
Despite Bavinck’s apparent aligning of adoption and justification he also appears to work at keeping adoption as a separate and distinct benefit. He does this when writing of
180 Ibid, 179. 181 Ibid, 186. 182 Ibid, 228-229. 48 how in effecting communion with Christ the Holy Spirit effects participation in all His benefits such as righteousness, holiness, redemption, and assures believers of their status as children of God among other benefits.183 Bavinck writes that it is “[o]nly when people believe and by that faith embrace the righteousness of Christ does God accept them in
Christ, forgive their sins, make them free from the law, adopt them as his children, incorporate them into fellowship with Christ, and so on.”184 In dividing the benefits of
Christ into three groups in order to showcase Christ’s redemption from all three groupings of sin – “a breach of the covenant of works, a loss of the image of God, and submission to the domination of corruption” – Bavinck separates justification and the acceptance as children.185 He writes that the first grouping of benefits is because Christ
“restores our right relation to God and all creatures;” the benefits in this group include
“forgiveness of sins, justification, the purification of our conscience, acceptance as children, peace with God, Christian liberty, and so on.”186 These sections of Bavinck’s work, in junction with his statement that “God declares sinners righteous, adopts them as children, promises them Christ and all his benefits,”187 points towards a separation, though close connection, of adoption and justification. This separation, consequently, appears to be a contradiction of the earlier statements which noted that adoption is a part of justification for Bavinck.
Despite pointing out the importance of adoption as children and mentioning it occasionally in his discussions, adoption is not a primary focus for Bavinck. Adoption in
183 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 506. 184 Ibid, 522. 185 Ibid, 594. 186 Ibid. 187 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 213. 49
Bavinck’s work appears to be an underlying theme that influences other topics but is not often expounded upon. If he had given dedicated time to expounding on his conception of adoption he may have clarified the apparent tension in his work concerning whether or not adoption is a positive benefit of justification or a separate benefit of Christ. He may have also brought more light to the connection he saw between adoption and other doctrines. By expounding on his conception of adoption not only would there be a reduction of the tension that adoption produces within justification but it will also give a solution the legal and ethical aspects within justification and sanctification, and to the gaps between Bavinck’s life and thought. We will return to adoption once Bavinck’s theological work of sanctification has been considered.
What then can be said of Bavinck’s understanding of justification? Ortlund summarizes the Dutch theologian’s understanding of the doctrine into eleven theses. He understands justification in Bavinck’s work to be the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls, it is forensic, it is an imputed righteousness, it is by faith, it is
Christological, it is Trinitarian, it is eschatological, it is not based on but never exists without ethical transformation, it is effected in time, it is counterintuitive, and it is emotionally liberating.188 Despite Bavinck having a deeply Christ centred justification, his neglect of adoption causes tension within his understanding of justification.
If Bavinck had enlarged upon the concepts of adoption that he mentioned, he would not only clarify apparent contradictions within his understanding of adoption but he would also be able to explain with greater clarity how the believer is in the same position with Christ legally. Additionally, he would have been able to strengthen his argument for
188 Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 251-263. 50 the connection between justification and sanctification and maintain his stance that ethical development is not the basis of justification. It is to the point of ethical transformation that the discussion now turns, for it is the point of ethically applying one’s legal status that builds a bridge between justification and sanctification in Bavinck’s theology.
Sanctification
We have determined that justification is central to Bavinck’s concept of salvation. We also noted that adoption, while not expounded upon in Bavinck’s work, is nevertheless located within his thought. In light of his doctrine of justification and its legal nature, we turn now to the matter of sanctification. Within his conception of sanctification, Bavinck writes of the ethical nature of sanctification, and yet he maintains a legal element. We will discuss the matter of Christ being both holiness and righteousness for the believer.
The implications of this ethical yet legal notion of sanctification will be used to determine what gaps there are within Bavinck's theological thought and between his life and theology.
Todd Billings points out that, in considering salvation, Calvin advocates for a distinct forensic moment that is different from the ethical transformation that the believer undergoes.189 However, the second grace of Calvin’s duplex gratia is not separated from the first despite its distinction. Billings continues by stating that for Calvin, justification provides the context for the second grace, its free pardon granted through the life and
189 Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, 58; Calvin, Institutes, 3.6.3, 3.11.1, 3.11.3, 3.11.11, 3.11.13. 51 work of Christ allows for one to begin and work through moral transformation.190 Calvin writes that Christ is offered not only for justification but also for sanctification, as Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of His Spirit.191 Christ cannot be divided into parts, Calvin argues, therefore, justification and sanctification are inseparable so that whoever God receives into His favor, He presents with the Spirit of adoption and forms the believer into His image.192
Bavinck is of the same mind. He too seeks to keep the connection between justification and sanctification without losing their distinctions. The major way in which he does this is in his understanding of the two benefits and their source. It was seen above that Bavinck understood justification as a benefit from Christ. The same is true for sanctification.193 Throughout this section, it will become apparent that the major theme of
Bavinck’s sanctification is that it has been won by Christ for the believer’s sake.
However, despite his intention to keep a strong connection between justification and sanctification there arises an issue concerning why one must live an ethical life. The connection between the point of one being legally justified and the active life that one is to live out appears to lack the emphasis within Bavinck's theology that it had in his life.
In the second volume of his Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck writes concerning the old covenant and what sanctification meant at that time. According to Bavinck “sanctification is something more than merely being set apart; it is, … to divest a thing of the character it has in common with all other things, and to impress upon it another stamp, a stamp
190 Ibid, 107. 191 Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.8 192 Ibid, 3.11.6. 193 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 528. 52 uniquely its own, which must bear and display everywhere.” 194 He spoke of this in regards to the Old Testament and holiness. He also wrote, “[t]hat which has thus been made holy lives a life of its own, has a character of its own, and is set apart from the common life and laws of other people.”195 Aspects of this understanding are seen to come forward into his understanding of sanctification within the new covenant of grace.
The Work of Christ
Sanctification is Christ’s work and gift. Bavinck argues that in this the death of
Christ, He not only won forgiveness of sins for His people but He also won sanctification for them.196 In going to His death there was a total consecration to the Father and a perfect obedience to His will. This act of perfection and sanctification of Christ was “a sanctification of himself that by his word [the disciples] too might be sanctified in the truth.”197 In this passage, Bavinck refers specifically to how the demand of the law is perfection, how this perfection is only obtained through conversion, faith, and regeneration, and how Christ has led the way for His disciples.198 Bavinck adds to this by writing that Christ not only left his example, He also won for His disciples the forgiveness of sins and that they might be sanctified. Bavinck specifies this by writing that to be engrafted into Christ means that one receives not only His righteousness but also His holiness.199
194 Bavinck, God and Creation, 219. 195 Ibid. 196 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 233. 197 Ibid. 198 Ibid. 199 Ibid, 233-234. 53
It is in Christ that one is “enabled to bear fruits that glorify the name of the Father” and also “to keep his commandments and to remain in his love.”200 It can be seen, therefore, that Bavinck understands sanctification to be a work of God. He writes that sanctification is more specifically the work of “Christ and his Spirit.”201 This poses the question of what the active aspect of sanctification is for the believer. Is he or she to take an active role?
Ortlund notes Bavinck’s emphasis on Christ’s work in sanctification. He recognizes that Bavinck has a tendency to emphasize that Christ is the believer’s sanctification just as He is the believer’s righteousness; additionally, he notes that it is the same faith that grants righteousness, which grants sanctification.202 Bavinck now brings the conversation back to the point of faith. He notes that in the Reformation, faith pushed back against the nomistic system that had arisen in the Catholic Church.203 This brought a focus on communion with God being restored solely by the gracious act of God.
In the connection between faith and sanctification, Bavinck believed that Reformed theology upheld and realized a stronger understanding of faith, as being both a receptive organ and an active force, than that which was understood by the Lutherans.204 He held that this strong understanding of faith, being both religious and ethical, came from the
Reformed understanding of faith arising from regeneration and being accompanied by
200 Ibid, 233. 201 Ibid, 235. 202 Ortlund, “Sanctification by Justification: The Forgotten Insight of Bavinck and Berkouwer on Progressive Sanctification,” 52. 203 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 242. 204 Ibid, 243. 54 constant repentance.205 It can be seen, therefore, that faith is a vital part of both justification and sanctification.
In addition to his push back against aspects of theology found in Catholicism,
Bavinck also argued against Methodism and its concept of sanctification.206 Bavinck argued against the concept of separation between justification and sanctification as well as the idea that sanctification was a special gift of God that was different in character than justification.207 Wesley writes that perfection is formed in an instant in the soul by an act of faith.208 Additionally, he adds that it also has some aspect of gradual work, though the instant of entire sanctification happens many years after justification.209
Ortlund notes that Bavinck expresses concern over those that have spread a false idea that sanctification was a subsequent postscript to justification and rested upon human action.210 Bavinck argues that though sanctification can be seen as a fruit of the former it is seen as a special gift and of a different character.211 Bavinck continues in this line of argumentation. He states that if perfect sanctity comes after justification then it is a
205 Ibid. 206 Ibid, 245-248. 207 Ibid, 245. 208 John Wesley, “Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfection,” in The Works of John Wesley: Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, and Letters, 3rd ed., vol. 11, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 446. 209 Ibid. For more information concerning Wesley’s understanding of sanctification see: John Wesley, “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection as Believed and Taught by the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, from the year 1725, to the year 1777,” in The Works of John Wesley: Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, and Letters, 3rd ed., vol. 11, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 366-446. 210 Ortlund, “Sanctification by Justification,” 45. 211 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 245. 55 second change, which, according to Bavinck, makes sanctification a “real change” while leaving justification as “a relative change.”212
Against Entire Sanctification
It was mentioned above that Wesley understood entire sanctification to come about in an instant by an act of faith. Bavinck regards this understanding as a misconstrual of the nature of faith as well as that of sanctification. He argues that faith is a living and active faith, even when viewed in regards to passive justification, which appropriates the whole of Christ.213 He continues by saying that faith can increase and grow in that appropriation but it always has “for its object the whole of Christ and can never isolate him from his benefits nor can it isolate one benefit from the others.”214 One of the major contentions
Bavinck has, therefore, is the apparent division of Christ and His benefits if sanctification is seen as an instant act of faith rather than an organic process.215 Would have an understanding of adoption helped to increase his argument that Christ and His benefits, including sanctification, must not be separated?
Through an expanded use of adoption, Bavinck would have been able to keep sanctification connected to justification, as he argued for, without causing sanctification to take second place to justification. This intention to keep both connected can be seen as a significant reason for Bavinck’s focus on sanctification being both passive and active.
212 Ibid. 213 Ibid, 264. 214 Ibid. 215 Bavinck writes that sanctification is an organic process from both the divine and the human side. He argues that the more Christ indwells the believer the more he or she is strengthened in faith, the more that faith increases the more Christ communicates Himself to the believer. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 264. 56
Though, as will be seen shortly, this attempt had a negative result in that the believer’s active role took less significance in his theology than it did in his life.
Bavinck additionally argues against the idea that perfection is a possibility to achieve and attain in this life. He notes that proponents of perfectionism cannot attain and maintain the demand of the law. When looking at the perfectionists Bavinck sees the degrading of the moral law, the distinction between mortal and venial sins, the distinction between committing and harbouring sin, and also a distinction between that which is earthly and heavenly, producing a relative and absolute perfection.216 Bavinck argues that this is against Scripture as it maintains the full and irreducible demand of the law.217
Bavinck is cautious not to fall into legalism. He also strives to avoid a notion of perfectionism that is possible to achieve within this life. Had he not neglected adoption he would have been able to navigate the legal dimensions of justification and the ethical dimensions of sanctification with greater ease. It would have also allowed him to continue to maintain the close connection between the two doctrines.
In the concept of the connection between justification and sanctification, Bavinck does not disregard the distinction between the two despite his insistence to keep a close connection between them. Bavinck understands the distinction as resting upon the fact of who God is. He recognizes God as being both righteous and holy. It is as the Righteous
One that He desires all creatures to stand in relation to Him in freedom from guilt and punishment.218 As the Holy One He demands all that are to appear before Him to be pure
216 Ibid, 263. 217 Ibid. 218 Ibid, 249. 57 and unpolluted by sin.219 In this way, both aspects are vital for salvation in Bavinck’s mind. Justification fulfills the first need in that it is a juridical act that brings complete acquittal instantly. Sanctification fulfills the second need in an ethical manner. Bavinck writes that sanctification is “continued throughout the whole of life and, by the renewing of the Holy Spirit, gradually makes the righteousness of Christ our personal ethical possession.”220
In his effort to explain how justification and sanctification play a role in salvation in regard to the righteous and holy nature of God, Bavinck neglects to explain adequately the manner in which one ethically applies the legal status that is found in Christ. He writes that Christ becomes one’s “personal ethical possession” but rather than expounding on the active role that the believer has in possessing the legal reality in an ethical process, he focuses on how Christ is one’s holiness. While Bavinck is not incorrect in this regard, his emphasis causes a problem within his work. The active role that believers are to take is downplayed leaving a gap between the legal and ethical aspects of his soteriology. Furthermore, between Bavinck’s ethical approach to life and his minimal explanation of the active role that the believer takes a gap emerges.
Another significant point of Bavinck’s theology of sanctification is the argument that it is grounded in the Holy Spirit. He writes that the Spirit that Jesus promised is in addition to being the Spirit of adoption is also the Spirit of renewal and sanctification.221
Furthermore, when Bavinck is writing about Calvin and common grace, he writes that it is the Holy Spirit who is the spirit of sanctification, a spirit of life, of wisdom, and of
219 Ibid. 220 Ibid. 221 Ibid, 251. 58 power.222 It becomes clear that Bavinck is again drawing justification and sanctification close together in this regard. As justification draws life in its train, it is the Holy Spirit that is the spirit of this new life. It is the Holy Spirit who becomes the principle of the sanctification of the church, now she is a “holy nation” that has been freed and cleansed from sin and consecrated for eternity to God.223
Active and Passive Sanctification
Vital to Bavinck’s concept of sanctification is that of a passive and active sanctification. Here the tension between his theology and his life reaches its greatest point. Bavinck’s life was one of an active Christian who applied ethically the status of his salvation. He actively applied his sanctification to his life. He did not shy away from the opportunities presented to him to live out his Christian faith in the world. He sought to bring glory to God and to live in the political realm. Unfortunately, Bavinck’s work on active sanctification within the Reformed Dogmatics does not appear to share the same active focus that is reflected in his public life.
Despite making a distinction between the passive and active aspects of the doctrine,
Bavinck still sees them as closely knit together because God works in them both.224 The passive aspect of sanctification is that which God does in the believer. This returns to the point of Christ being the believer’s holiness just as He is their righteousness. It is a work and gift of God, in this sanctification “believers are set apart from the world and placed in a special relationship with God.”225 However, Bavinck argues that sanctification does not
222 Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” 119. 223 Bavinck, God and Creation, 221. 224 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 255. 225 Ibid, 252. 59 solely consist of this fact for it has a profound ethical significance.226 Notwithstanding this assertion, Bavinck’s work comes close to relegating active sanctification to a second- class status.
In the manner of passive sanctification, Bavinck returns to the understanding that he expounded with regard to sanctification, holiness, and the Old Testament. In passive sanctification, the believer receives the benefit of sanctification from Christ. There is a setting apart for a new purpose. A new stamp has been placed on the believer showing that he or she is set apart for a new work. This is where the aspect of active sanctification comes in. In active sanctification, the believer is called and equipped to sanctify themselves and live their lives in devotion to God.227 In this manner, there is a continued repentance, a point that Bavinck related to a living vibrant faith. Again in active sanctification, the Holy Spirit plays a vital role. The believer, according to Bavinck, receives the power of the Spirit to present him or herself as an instrument of righteousness.228
Though Bavinck’s section on the passive and active elements of sanctification is relatively brief (five pages) it is apparent that passive sanctification takes the first place in
Bavinck’s thought. Bavinck writes that sanctification is in the first place a work and gift
226 Ibid, 253. 227 Ibid, 253. 228 Ibid. Additionally, it must be said that for Bavinck sanctification is intricately connected to glorification. He sees glorification not beginning in the time after death but is initiated immediately with the calling. In this regard it is very similar to Bavinck’s understanding of sanctification and adoption. Glorification will be seen to be complete in the time to come but has some aspect in the here and now just as sanctification and adoption have aspects in the now but will be realized in their totality in the time to come. Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 236, 253. 60 of God, a process in which the believer is passive.229 The active aspect, in Bavinck’s mind, is the second place in which, based on the work of God, the believer is called and equipped to sanctify him or herself.230 There is no doubt that for Bavinck the concept of good works is vital for he writes that sanctification “manifests itself in good works.”231
Despite this ethical element, Bavinck fixes his eyes firmly on sanctification being a grace of God and makes sure to reaffirm that sanctification cannot happen without the work of
God.
Would have an understanding of adoption helped to keep these two aspects, passive and active, on a more even plane in Bavinck’s thought? It is clear that Bavinck sought to keep them equal as he writes, “Scripture definitely insists on sanctification, both its passive and active aspects, and proclaims both the one and the other with equal emphasis.”232 However, he does appear to emphasize the aspects of passive sanctification, in that Christ is one’s holiness, more so than the aspects of active sanctification. A greater emphasis on adoption would have assisted in Bavinck’s effort to stay in line with the biblical thought that he argued supported both active and passive sanctification. It would have also brought his theology in line with his life. How this could be done will be exampled in a later chapter.
Bolt claims that the description of the life of the Christian as an imatio Christi is the heart of Calvin’s discussion on regeneration and sanctification.233 Though Bavinck does
229 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 253. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid, 256. 232 Ibid, 255. 233 Bolt, A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck's Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi, 25. 61 not expressively speak on the imitation of Christ in his chapter on sanctification there is some import to his understanding of sanctification from his view of the imatio Christi.
Bolt writes that Bavinck understands the imitation of Christ in a twofold sense. He understands it to be a living communion with Christ and as a direct consequence of this spiritual fellowship with Christ: Imitation involves taking the virtues and obligations that are in conformation with the law of God as being normative for one’s moral life.234 It is this second element that shows a tie with Bavinck’s understanding of sanctification.
Bavinck portrays sanctification as an organic process – the more that Christ indwells the believer the more he or she is strengthened in faith and the more that faith increases the more that Christ communicates Himself to the believer.235 Unfortunately, this was not an element found in Bavinck’s discussion of active sanctification so the problem of the gap between the forensic and ethical still remains.
For Bavinck, both justification and sanctification are immersed in a Trinitarian comprehension. In concern with justification, Bavinck writes that the “Father justifies effectively; the Son, meritoriously; the Holy Spirit, applicationally.”236 In regards to the whole of salvation, in which one’s relationship is restored to God, one is renewed after
God’s image, and one is preserved for his or her heavenly inheritance, Bavinck writes that one is called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.237 He continues in his Trinitarian understanding by stating that this is all “from God, in Christ, through the power and working of the Holy Spirit.”238
234 Bolt, “Christ and the Law in the Ethics of Herman Bavinck,” 61. 235 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 264. 236 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 205. 237 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 491. 238 Ibid. 62
Sanctification and Adoption
Continuing the suggestion that adoption may provide a solution to the gaps between
Bavinck’s life and theology, and between the legal and ethical aspects of his soteriology, adoption must now be considered with reference to sanctification. This will help to determine how adoption might be harmonized with Bavinck’s work, and allow the doctrine to be used in bridging the gaps that have been identified in his theology thus far.
Though adoption is mentioned less in regard to sanctification than it is to justification, it plays an important role. For Bavinck, the state of being the adopted child of God has a vital role in the matter of active sanctification. Those who have been adopted increasingly become the children of God and bear His image and likeness because they are already
His children.239 Bavinck calls to believers to “Become what you are!”240
If Bavinck had drawn out this concept of becoming what one is – a child of God – then he would have been able to emphasize active sanctification and good works to a greater degree while not losing the significance of sanctification being primarily a work of Christ. Bavinck was wary of falling into a legalistic mindset. He also pushed back against the concept that sanctification is separate from justification or is merely a post- script to justification. However, due to the heavy focus on justification and passive sanctification he appears to have fallen into the trap that he sought to avoid.
239 Ibid, 255. 240 Ibid. 63
Summary
The discussion here has demonstrated that for Bavinck justification and sanctification are held together through union with Christ. It is in Christ that both righteousness and holiness is found and is granted to believers. Ortlund notes that this union with Christ is a crucial pillar in Bavinck’s view and results in justification emerging “from a more fundamental and soteriological reality.”241
For Bavinck, justification and sanctification are a gift of grace by God. They are both deeply Christological and Trinitarian as well as having eschatological import.
Justification is forensic while sanctification is ethical. Though distinct from one another they are not to be separated for justification never exists without ethical transformation just as sanctification does not exist without justification. Justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ that is effected in time. Sanctification is both passive and active.
It is passive in the sense that it is a gift from God and won by Christ and active in the sense that the believer is equipped by the Spirit to live in devotion to God. Good works arise as the believer becomes morally and ethically conformed to the image of Christ. For
Bavinck, grace is the beginning, middle, and end of the work of salvation. Just as creation and redemption are works of God so too is sanctification, it is of Him, through Him, leads to Him, and serves to glorify Him.242
Though Bavinck did not develop a full doctrine of adoption it is apparent that he understands it to flow from justification. However, in his connecting justification and adoption, the question remains whether or not he places it as an aspect of justification or
241 Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 257. 242 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 579. 64 sees it as a separate benefit of Christ. Additionally, adoption is understood to be primarily a legal notion in which the believer is adopted as a child. In this regard, Bavinck attempts to centre on Pauline thought. However, he does bring aspects of Johannine thought into his conception of adoption. It was noted earlier that for Bavinck sonship carries with it ethical implications, hence, adoption is connected not only with justification but also with sanctification. Despite making these connections Bavinck did not draw out the idea of adoption and its relationship to justification and sanctification.
Had Bavinck emphasized the state of being a child of God, as he mentioned in passing, and its connection between justification and sanctification, he could have been able to keep his focus on the grace and work of God while still highlighting the aspect in which the believer takes part in the Christian life. No doubt active Christian living is important for Bavinck. It was seen in the preceding chapter that Bavinck placed himself firmly within the world and lived out his theological convictions. His writings also showcase the importance of the ethical aspect of the Christian life. It appears contradictory, therefore, that there was not a greater emphasis on this dynamic in his work on sanctification.
Throughout the last two chapters, it has been determined that Bavinck’s life and theology are not in agreement with regard to his understanding of active sanctification.
This is, at least in part, because forensic and ethical elements of Bavinck’s soteriology lack a bridge that spans the gap of how or why the believer works toward actively applying the legal status one has in Christ ethically to their life. The proposed solution to this dilemma is a developed comprehension of the doctrine of adoption.
65
In the chapters that are to follow, I will demonstrate how adoption can be used as a bridge between forensic justification and ethical sanctification. This will be done in order to preserve both the centrality of Christ’s work and the responsibility of an active
Christian life. I will do this first by establishing a theological understanding of adoption.
Once that has been completed, I will move on to examine Bavinck’s allusion of adoption connecting justification and sanctification. Finally, I will expound on his work and showcase adoption as the basis by which one ethically appropriates in sanctification that which is theirs legally in justification. This will be done in order to work towards bringing Bavinck’s life and work into a harmonious agreement.
66
Chapter Three:
Adoption
In previous chapters, it was demonstrated that Bavinck played an instrumental role in the establishment of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He was also a theological leader in the establishment of Dutch neo-Calvinistic thought. Bavinck was a theologian who sought to live out his theological convictions as he served his church and country. What theological framework would support his active service, and was it sufficient?
Within Bavinck’s work on justification and sanctification, it is apparent that his focus is predominantly on what God has done for His people; salvation is solely the work of
God. While this is good and true, his minimal attention to the active role that people of faith have in regards to sanctification appears to be at odds with his lived convictions. He writes of an active and living faith243 and that believers are to be active in the world.244 It was mentioned in the previous chapter that Bavinck alluded to the concept of the believer living in dedication to God as His child. Bavinck wrote that the believer was to become what he or she was – a child of God.245 Within the freedom that had been given to the believer through justification, the believer was to appropriate ethically what was already granted to them legally.246
243 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 264. 244 Ibid, 721. 245 Ibid, 255. 246 Ibid, 249. 67
This chapter will begin the process of drawing out the concept of adoption as a theological bridge between justification and sanctification, connecting the two doctrines without resorting to nomism or antinomianism. In order to draw out Bavinck’s concept of adoption, this chapter will consider how adoption has often been neglected as a focus within theology, and engage a brief discussion concerning the background of the term adoption within the Pauline letters. The concept of Christ being both adopted and eternal
Son will also be examined as it has implications for the adoption of believers. Finally, a discussion on adoption’s role within the ordo salutis will also be given in order to begin to establish its connection with justification and sanctification. The focus of this chapter will remain predominantly on the Reformed perspective as the conclusions made here will be used to draw out and interact with Bavinck’s theological conception of adoption in relation to justification and sanctification.
When one thinks of adoption it is primarily as a horizontal act; a journey in which a childless family embarks on bringing a child into their home. It is seen, therefore, that horizontal adoption is adoption that consists within the realm of humanity. However, adoption also occurs on a vertical level. In this way, God adopts children into His heavenly family. Vertical adoption, therefore, is adoption that happens between God and humanity. He frees them from the slavery to sin in which they were held and gives them a new identity – that of His son or daughter. This concept of vertical adoption has its place in theology in the doctrine of adoption.
The doctrine of adoption has been neglected throughout Church history. However, there are those today and in the recent past that strive towards bringing it into the light.
They strive to show the beauty of what it means to be an adopted child of God. Adoption
68 has implications not only for the individual and how he or she views salvation but implications for how one understands the Church, the Sacraments, as well as what is to come.
A Neglected Doctrine
Throughout the history of the Church, the doctrine of adoption has not been at the center of discussion. Tim Trumper has gone as far as to say that adoption is one of the most underrated doctrines of Scripture.247 Those that have studied the doctrine stand out in their view of its importance and role within the whole of salvation and Christian understanding. David Garner writes that in a survey of the Church fathers there is seen to be little attention to the Pauline term huiothesia with the exception of Irenæus.248
However, it has been noted that the Latin fathers were more prone to overlooking adoption than their Greek counterparts.249
Despite lacking focus on huiothesia, there are still aspects of sonship within the ancient thinkers. The Greek Father, Clement of Alexandria wrote that once one has been baptized then he or she is illuminated, and in being illuminated one becomes a son and is then made perfect and immortal.250 For Clement, it could, therefore, be said that adoption is a part of the perfection of one’s salvation. For Athanasius, another of the Greek
247 Tim J. R. Trumper, “The Theological History of Adoption I: An Account,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 20, no. 1 (2002), 4. 248 David B. Garner, Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016), 21. 249 Trumper, “The Theological History of Adoption I,” 15. 250 Clement of Alexandria, “Paedagogus,” in Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 29. 69
Fathers, believers are sons and gods because of the Spirit within and then Christians will be one with the Father and the Son.251 The believer’s adoption, therefore, was a part of the union with the Divine. The Latin Father, St. Ambrose of Milan, spoke of adoption in the Spirit as a holy regeneration in which Christians are taken into God’s kingdom and made heirs of a new birth from above.252
Sinclair Ferguson has noted that neither the early nor the medieval Church expressed much interest in the idea of the Christian life as a life of sonship.253 This view did not substantially change in the Reformation. Though it has been stated that Martin Luther had a good appreciation for the familial character of redemption it should be noted that this has been overshadowed by his firm emphasis on justification, 254 an emphasis that continues to this day in many circles. Conversely, while Calvin also clearly affirmed the importance of justification,255 he is known also as having a high view of adoption.
Billings argues that for Calvin’s theology the themes of participation, adoption, and engrafting in Romans play an important role.256
A big move forward for the study of the doctrine of adoption came with the
Westminster Confession of Faith and both the larger and shorter catechisms of the
251 Athanasius, “Defense against the Arians,” in Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 50-51. 252 Ambrose, “The Holy Spirit,” in Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 90. 253 Sinclair B. Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” in Pulpit & People: Essays in Honour of William Still on his 75th Birthday, ed. Nigel M. De S. Cameron and Sinclair B. Ferguson, (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986), 81. 254 Garner, Sons in the Son, 22. 255 Calvin, Institutes, 3.11-4. 256 Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, 51. 70
Westminster Assembly. Written during the backdrop of the English civil war, the aim of the Westminster Standards was to unite Scotland, England, and Ireland in doctrinal agreement.257 The Westminster Confession was the first confession to give adoption its own declaration and explanation. A significant proportion of the Westminster divines were of Puritan stock. There are differing thoughts on whether or not Puritans are to be understood as addressing the subject of adoption as its own separate theological locus.
The arguments have been both for and against their import on the study of adoption. It has been noted that most work done on adoption by the Puritans has not been reprinted, adding to the impression that they did not focus on the doctrine.258 Men such as William
Ames, Thomas Watson, and Herman Witsius are examples of Puritans who dealt with adoption. In some cases, even Thomas Goodwin and John Owen are mentioned for their reference to adoption during their work on various doctrines.259 Though Douglas Kelly has pointed towards Reformed Christians of Celtic background, Robert Bruce, John
Craig, Robert Candlish, and T. J. Crawford, as having been among the few who worked to seriously develop the doctrine,260 few have taken adoption seriously.
Webb suggests that within more Reformed circles the neglect of adoption may be due to an overwhelming majority of scholars who have followed Francis Turretin’s example
257 J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014), 53-55. 258 Joel R. Beeke, Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 11-12. 259 Trumper, “The Theological History of Adoption I,” 23; Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 11-12. 260 Douglas F. Kelly, “Adoption: An Underdeveloped Heritage of the Westminster Standards,” The Reformed Theological Review 52, no. 3 (September 1993): 13. 71 of placing adoption as a second element of justification.261 Turretin writes that from the imputation of Christ’s most perfect righteousness flow two benefits, remission of sins and adoption, which is the right to eternal life. He argues that in these two benefits the whole of justification is contained.262
The consequence of placing adoption under justification results in the loss of the beauty of both doctrines. Adoption gets lost in a focus on justification and justification’s vital legal implications may be smudged as familial language is incorporated into its definition. Additionally, ethical aspects of adoption may be overlooked as its legal considerations are emphasized in justification. The relationship between justification and adoption will be looked at in chapter four.
There are other opinions on why adoption may have been neglected for so long. As a charismatic Anglican, Mark Stibbe suggests that some neglect may result from an emphasis on intellect over the heart and experience, a fear of predestination, and inadequate translations of huiothesia in both English and other languages.263 Furguson adds that adoption’s neglect may be due in part to liberalism’s emphasis on the universal fatherhood of God, and flowing from that, universal sonship, the brotherhood, and the sisterhood of humanity. 264 In this regard, the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is connected to God as Creator rather than God as an adoptive Father.
261 R. A. Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 17. 262 Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., vol. 2, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994), 657. 263 Mark W. G. Stibbe, From Orphans to Heirs: Celebrating Our Spiritual Adoption, new ed., (Oxford: Bible Reading Fellowship, 2005), 16. 264 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” 83. 72
Though adoption may have been neglected in the past and still have little emphasis,265 today there are scholars who are working towards bringing the doctrine into a more visible space. In their decision to write on this doctrine they showcase the importance that they think adoption holds, not just to one’s understanding of theology but also of the
Christian life. The work of some of these scholars will be considered below.
Begotten vs. Adopted
As mentioned previously, one reason for the neglect of adoption could be its being subsumed under the notion of justification. This was the case in many systematic theologies, including Louis Berkhof. In his section on the ordo salutis, Berkhof briefly mentions adoption by indicating that justification carries with it the gift of the Spirit of adoption.266 He then continues this thought in his chapter on justification. Berkhof writes that adoption falls under the positive element of justification, with two parts – adoption and the right to eternal life.267 Despite an effort to relate adoption and the right to eternal life, unlike Bavinck, he sees the two as separate parts of the passive element of justification.268
Charles Hodge in writing on justification merely alludes to adoption. He writes that justification is more than simply pardoning a criminal as can be seen in Romans,
265 I have noted while talking to a range of people about my thesis that many Christians have not put much consideration into the idea that believers are adopted children of God. This is particularly marked in the non-seminary educated Christians. 266 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 418. 267 Ibid, 515-516. 268 Ibid, 516. 73 however, he does not address adoption.269 He goes on to argue that the right to eternal life is included or conveyed within justification. However, unlike Berkhof, Hodge does not mention adoption in relation to this eternal life.270 Finally, Hodge tells of how by faith in
Christ the believer becomes the son of God and His heir.271 Though referencing Romans
8:17, a verse which follows from Paul’s statement concerning the Spirit of adoption,
Hodge avoids referring to adoption.272
Another reason for the lack of work done in the area of adoption may be due to conflating adoption with another aspect of theology. Trumper notes that adoption has suffered conflation with the Johannine doctrine of regeneration.273 Conflation may be due to the theme of sonship that is found in both Johannine and Pauline literature.274 The fatherhood of God and therefore the sonship of the Christian is central not only to Paul, who speaks on adoption,275 but also to John. Trumper notes that both biblical writers use the term ‘children of God,’ they both use the terminology metaphorically, both are referring to the same paternal God and saviour Jesus Christ, and both speak of the
Christians making up God’s family.276 While speaking of the two in terms of sonship, conflating them may cause problems. Combining the two terms may lead to a
269 Charles Hodge, Soteriology, vol. 3, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013), 128-129. 270 Ibid, 129. 271 Ibid. 272 Ibid. 273 Tim J. R. Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption: A Plea for Realisation,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 14, no. 2 (1996): 139. This conflation can be seen in Thomas Houston, The Adoption of Sons, Its Nature, Spirit, Privileges, and Effects: Practical and Experimental Treatise, (Paisley Scot: Alex. Gardner, 1872). 274 Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption,” 131. 275 Romans 8:15-17, 22-23, 9:3-5; Galatians 4:4-7; Ephesians 1:3-6. 276 Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption,” 135. 74 misunderstanding of what each biblical writer was trying to portray, especially in regards to how one enters into the family of God.
For John teknon/tekna (child, children) is for those that receive Christ and believe in His name, they are those that have been born again.277 On the other hand, huios (son), is reserved for Jesus who has both a natural and an essential relationship with the Father
(1 Jn. 1:3, 7; 2:23, 24; 3:8, 23; 4:8, 14, 15; 5:9-13, 20).278 Christ is the one who partakes of the being and image of God the Father. The emphasis, therefore, is upon the origin of
Jesus as the eternal Son. This is not to say that John is neglecting the aspect of family likeness. Trumper points out that in 1 John 1:3 John uses the words tekna Theou, children of God, and there is, therefore, a connection with a family likeness.279
Garner observes John’s preference of tekna (children) as being used as a safeguard which allows the use of huios, son, to be for Jesus alone.280 Paul, however, uses huios for both Jesus Christ as the Son and for believers (Rom. 1:3; 5:10; 8:3; 9:9; 1 Cor.
1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor. 1:19; 3:7, 13; 6:18; Gal. 1:16 etc.). Garner argues that for Paul the use of huios for both is referring to a shared family identity rather than a separation.281 While
Paul may be trying to pinpoint the new shared identity of believers with the Son, it is interesting to note that huiothesia is explicitly for believers (Rom. 8:15-17, 22-23, 9:3-5;
Gal. 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-6). It is because the believer has been placed as a child of God that
277 Due to the need to understand the differences between Johannine and Pauline sonship language at this point I am going to engage in the beliefs of some scholars in regards to the differences. I am not doing an original exegesis, rather I am working to determine how or why the scholars who work on the topic of adoption choose to focus primarily on Paul and do not engage with the Johannine concept of sonship. 278 Ibid, 136. 279 Ibid, 137. 280 Garner, Sons in the Son, 235. 281 Ibid, 204. 75 the term huios can be used. This may account for Paul’s preference of the adoption metaphor. Because the believer has been adopted he or she can be called a son of God.282
The concept of sanctification joining in with adoption can begin to be seen at this point in those who are sanctified are the children of God. This will be explored more in chapter four.
Trumper states that Paul is unique in his use of huiothesia, the concept that the
Christian’s “sonship” is dependent upon adoption.283 Trumper continues in this line of thought by saying that Paul is using huiothesia to portray the idea of adoption into the family and as such focuses on the status and freedom of the one adopted.284 This shows a family connection between Jesus and the believer. Unlike John who was careful to safeguard the difference between the eternal Son and those that were to receive a new birth, Paul’s focus was to draw the believer and Christ together as close as possible.
Adoption and the joint use of huios, therefore, shows and emphasizes the new identity of the believer. In drawing these concepts close together could this point towards how one should be living in Christ?
Adoption and the use of huios showcase the Christian’s participation in Christ which is only realized in union with Christ. Trumper wants to make it clear that Paul is not discounting and overlooking the distinction between Christ’s sonship and the believer’s sonship.285 Paul opens his letter to the Romans by telling his readers that Jesus
282 The use of ‘son’ for both male and female points towards an inheritance for both. Paul writes that there is neither male nor female because all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). It is interesting to note that this verse is found in one of the three books where Paul uses huiothesia (Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians). 283 Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption,” 132. 284 Ibid, 137. 285 Ibid. 76
Christ is the declared Son of God (1:4). Moving on through the letter, Paul continues to remind his readers that it is through Christ that salvation is to be had. In chapter eight, just prior to his discussion on adoption, Paul tells the church at Rome that freedom is found in Christ, the sent Son of God (v. 2-4).
Trumper demonstrates that John and Paul’s soteriological implications are not varying so much by the kind of implication but rather by degree. 286 This is to say that both John and Paul are speaking of salvation in a familial manner. However, the manner of how one is received into the family of salvation differs. For John, the believer is born again through the Spirit (John 3:3-5), while for Paul the believer is brought into the family through adoption (Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). While sonship is represented in both John and Paul, in order to develop a clearer image of adoption one should make sure to treat the two biblical authors separately as they offer differing perspectives on the same gospel. Trumper is of this opinion and writes that unlike earlier systematic theologians
Paul’s adoption metaphor should not be conflated or confused with the language of the other New Testament authors.287
Background to Paul’s use of Huiothesia
It has been established that the best way to understand the Pauline metaphor of adoption involves keeping the term un-combined with other New Testament metaphors.
It is vital to understand the meaning of huiothesia in order to understand what Paul was
286 Ibid. 287 Tim J. R. Trumper, “A Fresh Exposition of Adoption I: An Outline,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 23, no. 1 (2005), 62. 77 trying to portray to his readers. This matter of understanding the term becomes a significant point of discussion when dealing with adoption. It will become apparent that this matter is also important for the theological discussions that are to follow. I have observed that there are three main views when it comes to this debate. One group holds that Paul was specifically coming from an understanding of the Roman legal system.288
Another group sees the major influence as resulting from an understanding of Israel being adopted by God, especially marked by the exodus from Egypt.289 The final group of scholars understands adoption as having been influenced both by Roman law and by the redemptive-historical message of Israel’s adoption.290 These different groups will be engaged with and used to come to a conclusion that will be used throughout the rest of this work.
Greco-Roman Legal Practice
J.I. Packer, Trevor Burke, and Francis Lyall all hold to the more traditional view that
Paul was using the Roman legal understanding of adoption.291 Any good metaphor is
288 Francis Lyall typifies this view: Francis Lyall, “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul: Adoption,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88, no. 4 (December 1969); Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles, (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984). 289 James Scott illustrates this view in his work, James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of [huiothesia (romanized Form)] in the Pauline Corpus, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2, Reihe, 48, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1992). 290 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,”; Sinclair B. Ferguson, Children of the Living God: Delighting in the Father’s Love, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2011); Ronald Y. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); Garner, Sons in the Son; Stibbe, From Orphans to Heirs; Trumper, “A Fresh Exposition of Adoption I,”; Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption.” 291 J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 20th anniversary ed., (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 201; T. Burke, “Pauline Adoption: A Sociological Approach,” The Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001), 119–134.; Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 99. 78 based on what the listener can understand. It therefore stands to reason that Paul would have used a well-known practice of his day to explain the spiritual reality that the people were experiencing. Adoption in its Roman legal form was well known throughout the
Roman Empire. Peppard writes that this was predominantly due to the Emperor’s noticeable use of the institution as a principal method in which to sustain the family line.292 The reason for adoption being well known was because of the wide range of ways in which the Emperors let their subjects know of the imperial adoption.293
Lyall, one of the biggest voices in this group, notes that at the time of the writing of the New Testament the Roman law had by far the most developed adoption procedures.294 This was not the case of Jewish tradition. Within the Old Testament, there was no formalized adoption practice. Lyall continues his argument by stating that it was the seed of the man and the acceptance and acknowledgement of the identification of the son that was of primary importance in the time of the Old Testament.295 This can be seen in Genesis 38 where Tamar’s brother-in-law would not give her a child in the name of his brother and so she went to her father-in-law. Masquerading as a prostitute Tamar bore a son from her father-in-law. In the Deuteronomistic law, it was written that a brother was to do his duty by providing his dead brother a son so that his name may not be removed from history (Deut. 25:5-10).
292 Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 50. 293 Many of the ways that were utilized included images and legends of coins, construction and dissemination of portraiture and other monuments, and the use of official text and religious commemorations. It was through these different methods that the news of the imperial adoption spread and became part of the gossip network which allowed the news to spread further. Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World, 69. 294 Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 67. 295 Ibid, 71-72. 79
The reason for adoption within the Roman law was similar to this Hebraic law. The family line was to be continued, but for the Romans, it was not the genetic heritage that was at stake but the family cult. To support his argument regarding the Pauline basis being in Roman law, Lyall points out that there needed to be someone to represent the family before the family god.296 He continues by saying that it was necessary that adoption was distinguished from fosterage and succession for in neither does the individual become a part of the family with the intention of representing the family for religious purposes. 297
It is here that the importance of inheritance comes to the fore. In the Roman system, the heir was considered to be more than the legal representative of the deceased. Rather, he was a continuation of the deceased’s legal personality, he was the personification of the family.298 An heir was vitally important and it was irrelevant if he was a biological child or adopted. Additionally, in some cases, there were even situations in which there was more than one heir. Lyall writes that in the cases of more than one heir it was usually due to there being a group of brothers, in which case, they were joint heirs of the father and as was the case for a single heir they were considered to be as such within the father’s lifetime. 299
Lyall has used the point of joint heirs to solidify his argument for the Roman law being the leading influence on Paul’s adoption metaphor. In Romans 8, Paul writes that believers are heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (v. 15-17). If Paul was using the
296 Ibid, 69. 297 Ibid, 69-70. 298 Ibid, 108-109. 299 Ibid, 114. 80
Roman legal system as his example to explain the spiritual reality then this matter of being a “fellow heir” would have made sense, especially as it was possible to be an heir while the Father was still alive. Death did not have to come to the patriarch of the family in order for the heir to be the heir. This is a strong point when one thinks of the spiritual family. God who is not subject to death has called believers to be heirs and co-heirs with
Christ (Rom. 8:17).
Other reasons for the possibility of Roman adoption being Paul’s primary source of the metaphor fall to other aspects of the adoption procedure within the Roman law.
Peppard points out that adults were more frequently adopted than children.300 At the time of Paul’s writings and journeys, it was predominantly adults that were coming to the Lord rather than children. Therefore, the churches to which Paul wrote would have been able to identify with this aspect of adoption. Lyall continues to advocate for a Roman background when he brings up the point that when one was adopted into a new Roman family the power of the old family over the individual was removed and destroyed – the adoptee was sold into slavery and released three times in order for the adoption to be finalized.301 Perhaps this is why Paul writes first of release from the Law in Romans 7 before discussing adoption in the following chapter.
It can now be seen that the concept of using the Roman legal system of adoption to explain what God has done in His people is a reasonable assertion. Paul was using his cultural understanding and context. J. Mueller adds to this argument by stating that in the letters to the cities in which Paul used the term huiothesia, Roman law was a linking
300 Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World, 52. 301 Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 86-87. 81 point; additionally, the churches were made up predominantly of Gentile believers.302
Using a system they knew, Paul sought to explain the divine adoption to them. How great it would have been for the recipients of the letter to read that they were in the family of
God, adopted by Him. It is reasonable to assert that they knew that it was predominantly those of great power, wealth, and influence that adopted. Now they too were members of a great family, and not just members, but heirs. Though the argument is largely convincing, there is a disregard for the influence of the Old Testament in Paul’s choice of huiothesia.
Redemptive-Historical Adoption of Israel
What of those who hold to a redemptive-historical understanding of the adoption of believers as being Paul’s major point? It was shown above that Lyall understands adoption as a metaphor originating from the Roman law. He argues that it is unlikely that
Paul as a trained lawyer would use an illustration to communities in the Roman context that was drawn from an informal practice such as Jewish fosterage when by the same words he could refer to a detailed and well-known legal institution.303 From this comment it is apparent that Lyall holds that the adoption metaphor has a strict basis in the practice of horizontal adoption, that is, adoption of humans by humans. This concept is not the belief of many who advocate for an Old Testament understanding of Paul’s use of
‘adoption.’ Rather than referring to a horizontal adoption as the basis of the metaphor they are referring to a vertical adoption, the adoption of Israel by God.
302 J. Theodore Mueller, “Adoption,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed. Carl F. H. Henry, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), 221. 303 Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 80. 82
James Scott takes the understanding of Paul’s use of “adoption” as coming from an
Old Testament/Jewish context. He proposes that Paul’s use of adoption imagery should be understood in the light of the Jewish expectation of divine adoptive sonship in the messianic time.304 For Scott, the “type” is Israel’s redemption to divine adoptive sonship at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, and the “antitype” is the believers’ redemption to divine sonship at the time of the Second Exodus.305 This argument is, therefore, not coming from a horizontal understanding of adoption and using it to explain a type of vertical adoption. Rather, Scott is proposing that Paul’s metaphor of adoption is derived solely from the redemptive-historical background of the Old Testament. He is using an example of vertical adoption to explain vertical adoption.
In The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, Donald McKim writes that the background for Paul's language can be seen in the Jewish belief that Israel, through selection and rescue from Egypt by God, progressed from the status of slavery to the status of sonship.306 R. A. Webb is in agreement with this view, regarding Israel as being chosen among all nations and adopted into God’s family and that the same is true of
“spiritual Israel.”307 In an article devoted to determining whether Paul’s use of adoption comes from a Jewish understanding or a Greco-Roman understanding, William Rossell comes to conclude the former. He sees Paul’s use of adoption language as a harkening
304 Scott, Adoption as Sons of God, 186. 305 Ibid. 306 Donald K. McKim, The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology, 1st ed., The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology, (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 1. 307 Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption, 18. 83 back to the Old Testament and as such the concept of adoption within the New Testament is Semitic rather than Greco-Roman.308
In Exodus 4:21 God instructs Moses to tell Pharaoh that Israel is His firstborn son.
God was drawing Israel out from Egypt. Paul’s use of huiothesia, the placing of a son, is therefore understood as following an Exodus typology. Here, the believer’s adoption through the work of Jesus Christ is understood as a continuation of God’s redemptive plan. Israel’s adoption was a foretaste of adoption through Christ, an adoption that will be made complete (Rom. 8:22-23). Understanding adoption as a reflection of Israel’s adoption by God lends the doctrine a more covenantal and corporate understanding, rather than a highly individualistic interpretation. Despite recovering this important aspect, there appears to be a neglect of the Roman context. Is it possible to embrace both interpretations in developing a biblical theology of adoption from Paul?
Both Greco-Roman and Old Testament
Though the Roman legal understanding and the redemptive-historical view of the Old
Testament both have their advocates, the combination of the two views has become perhaps the most commonly accepted view of the discussion. In this way, one retains the importance of the Jewish heritage while also capturing the importance of the Roman legal understanding of adoption. Even within this agreement, there are differences of opinion on which, the Jewish or the Roman, bring greater influence to Paul’s discussion.
308 William H. Rossell, “New Testament adoption - Graeco-Roman or Semitic,” Journal of Biblical Literature 71, no. 4 (December 1952): 233-234. 84
It was noted that for Ferguson, adoption is not an Old Testament concept but a
Roman legal metaphor.309 However, he acknowledges that the nature of sonship was first unveiled by the Old Testament and brought to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. In other words, he sees a pattern of covenants in which Israel was adopted, finalized in Christ, but Paul used the Roman concept in which to describe the Christian’s sonship that came into fruition in the final covenant.310 In his commentary on Galatians, Ronald Fung writes that while the institution of adoption was not Jewish, one should not deny the possibility of the Old Testament and its theological background as playing a role in influencing Paul’s use of huiothesia.311
Stibbe agrees with Ferguson’s understanding. He sees adoption as coming from a
Roman understanding, yet still having the background of the story of the adoption of
Israel.312 However, his understanding of Roman adoption may be inaccurate, as he gives an example of a Roman child being adopted.313 Unfortunately, in his example, he loses the concept of an adult having to be freed from the old family and having shown himself trustworthy. He also loses the point that in the Roman context it is for the family and the continuation of the family that a person is adopted and not for the benefit of the adoptee.
This can serve as a reminder that the metaphor of adoption from a Roman understanding must not be taken too far. No matter the metaphor, the adoption of the believer by God is more beautiful and profound than the imagery of a horizontal adoption can suggest.
309 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” 84. 310 Ferguson, Children of the Living God, 10-12, 25. 311 Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, 138. 312 Stibbe, From Orphans to Heirs, 29-30, 34-40. 313 Ibid, 29-30. 85
Just as there are those who emphasize the socio-cultural background of Roman law having the prominent emphasis there are those who understand it in the opposite way. For them, it is the Old Testament that is the main influence on Paul’s use of huiothesia with a tie in from Roman law. Garner provides an example of this as he stresses that Paul was drawing from the redemptive-historical eschatological framework of the Old Testament.
Despite his Old Testament focus, Garner accepts that Paul also called on Roman cultural practice to help accentuate his point.314
Trumper similarly holds that Paul was drawing strongly from the Old Testament but he does give allowance for influence coming from the Greco-Roman cultural practices.315
These scholars, along with Robert Peterson, contend that the concept of the believer’s spiritual adoption comes from within the Old Testament but is fulfilled in the New
Testament and as such also draws from the cultural practices of the day.316
How are both of these aspects best incorporated into an understanding of adoption in
Paul? Paul called himself a Pharisee (Phil. 3:5), he understood the Old Testament, and he understood the importance of Jesus in accordance with what God had done for the house of Israel. It would therefore be wrong to disregard the redemptive-historical aspect of the adoptive message. Israel was the chosen people but through Christ salvation was made available not just for the Jews but also for the Gentiles (Rom 3:29, 9:24).
It must not be thought, however, that Paul was not influenced by the cultural practices of his day. He surely understood the cultural practice of adoption. He was a Roman
314 Garner, Sons in the Son, 54. 315 Trumper, “A Fresh Exposition of Adoption I,” 64-65. 316 Robert A. Peterson, Adopted by God: From Wayward Sinners to Cherished Children, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 25-26. 86 citizen and worked within the Roman Empire, many of those that he wrote to were a part of the milieu of the Empire. By using a well-known cultural practice in conjunction with the redemptive-historical typology of God’s claiming Israel at Exodus, Paul could begin to describe and explain the spiritual reality that was taking place in the people. From the above discussion, it is seen as reasonable to affirm the view that Paul is drawing both from the traditions of the Old Testament and using to Roman legal practice to affirm and expand what it means to be the adopted child of God.
This view of Paul’s background to huiothesia appears to be the closest to Bavinck’s understanding of adoption. While he speaks only briefly of Paul’s use of the term when he comments on adoption, Bavinck does take a strongly forensic view.317 The Greco-
Roman concept of adoption would lend itself more easily to this legal understanding of adoption rather than the redemptive-historical view coming from the Old Testament tradition. This is not to say that covenant is not important for Bavinck. Rather, the concept of covenant is an instrumental part of how he understands relations between God and humanity. He writes that within the scripture there are two parties in dialogue with one another: God calls the people to conversion, reminds them of their obligations, and obligates Himself to provide what is good.318 However, in his firm forensic understanding, Bavinck perhaps misses the ethical implications for the Christian life. A theology of adoption that holds both aspects, Greco-Roman and redemptive-historical, best compliments Bavinck’s own theological commitments about the forensic nature of justification, and helps to draw out the ethical aspects of sanctification.
317 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 226-227. 318 Bavinck, God and Creation, 569. 87
Adoption of Christ
We have just established that a biblical metaphor of adoption embraces a Roman legal model, and also helps to bring forward the Old Testament concept of being adopted and chosen by God. This all rests upon the work of Christ. It is through Christ’s obedience in life and in death that allows for one to be adopted. For Garner, without the human biography of Jesus Christ being crowned by His adoption as the Son of God, there is no salvation.319 He therefore holds that one cannot be adopted as a child of God if
Christ is not also the adopted Son. From this statement, it is clear that this topic is an important discussion point within a study of adoption and its relation to the doctrines of justification and sanctification.
It has long been the view of the church that Christ is not the adopted son but the incarnate eternal Son. For example, in De Principiis Origen holds that Christ is the Son by nature from the eternal and everlasting begetting of the Father.320 Particularly due to
Athanasius’ view of the disastrous consequences of the Arian conception of the Son as creature, he argues that to suggest that the Son is anything less than divine is to nullify the Son’s ability to save and thus to make inexplicable the Christian life.321 The issue at hand, therefore, was the ontological reality of Christ.322
319 Garner, Sons in the Son, 195. 320 Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius, Oxford Theological Monographs, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 88. 321 Ibid, 188. 322 The issue over who Christ was and what his divine status was happened to be an issue of contention prior to the Nicene Council. Among the differing views that came to the fore at this time, including modalism and Arianism, was that of Adoptionsim. Adoptionism held the view that Jesus was adopted by God and was imbued with the fullness of the divine presence. Consequently, Christ was an ordinary man who was adopted by God into divine sonship. The movement of Adoptionsim became known 88
Thomas Aquinas writes that sonship affects the person or hypostasis of an individual and not simply his nature; as such, for adoption to make sense then Christ must have two distinct subjects of existence, He must have two persons.323 Again, this is a question of the nature of Christ. The well-known Puritan, John Owen, is in agreement with Aquinas’ thought that in Christ’s humanity He was not the adopted Son. He states that if Christ was to be adopted then He must first have belonged to another family; for Owen, this would be equivalent to blasphemy.324
under Theodotus, he taught that Jesus’s miraculous powers were the result of His adoption at His baptism where the ‘Spirit’ or ‘Christ’ descended upon Him. Paul of Samosata was also promoted an adoptionist outlook, he was condemned for his teachings at the Synod of Antioch (268 C.E.). The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.) was called in part due to the controversies around Arius’ teachings. The contentions that lead to Arianism were the same contentions that brought the thought of Adoptionism into being. While the Council was primarily concerned with Arius’ views and that of his followers, the Creed that resulted also rejected adoptionist belief. The Creed states that Christ is “the only-begotten of the Father … begotten of the substance of the Father … true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance of the Father….” Consequently, the concept that Christ was a mere man and then was adopted as the divine Son is not compatible with this early creed. Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, 3rd ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 39-56; Jonathan Hill, Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 80-81; R. Kearsley, “Adoptionism,” in New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, eds. Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble, 2nd ed., (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 6. 323 St. Thomas Aquinas, The One Mediator (3a. 16-26), ed. Colman E. O'Neill, vol. 50, Summa Theologiæ: Latin Text and English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries, (New York: Blackfriars with McGraw-Hill, 1965), 169. 324 John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews with Preliminary Exercitations, Vol III, ed. Rev. William H. Goold, and Rev. Charles W. Quick, vol. XII, The Works of John Owen, (Philadelphia: Leighton Publications, 1869), 158. 89
Douglas Kelly argues that Calvin also affirms the full deity, self–existence, and underived divinity of Christ.325 Calvin sets out to give proofs of the divinity of Christ.326
He writes that the Son, who is the Christ, is the eternal and essential Word of the
Father.327 The Reformer continues in this line of thinking when he states that “the Word was eternally begotten by God, and dwelled with him for everlasting. In this way, his true essence, his eternity, and divinity are established.”328 Calvin continually asserts that
Christ is God, he writes that “if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life,
Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God.”329 It can be asserted, therefore, that for Calvin, Jesus Christ is the eternal Son.
Adopted and Eternal
In Sons in the Son Garner has done significant work in understanding the concept of
Christ being both the eternal and the adopted Son. A brief look at his understanding will help to see how it relates specifically to adoption before expanding to encompass justification and sanctification. Garner is of the firm belief that Jesus, as the incarnate
Son, is the Son of God adopted.330 He does not assert that Christ became the Son in a new way, in this way it is not a matter of ontology. For Garner, believing that Jesus is the incarnate adopted Son does not mean that there is a presumption or a demand that Jesus
325 Douglas F. Kelly, “The True and Triune God: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis, by David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, The Calvin 500 Series, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2008), 86. 326 Calvin, Institutes, 1.13.7-13. 327 Ibid, 1.13.7. 328 Ibid, 1.13.8. 329 Ibid, 1.13.12, 1.13.13. 330 Garner, Sons in the Son, 215, 314. 90 became Son for the first time or that he became divine at His adoption.331 It is through adoption that Jesus’ redemptive ability is secured and confirmed in His righteousness.
What Garner is saying is that Christ’s sonship did not begin with his resurrection, rather there was a “personal filial change.”332 Hence, the argument emphasizes that Christ experienced filial change rather than an ontological change.
Following Garner’s argument, one finds that he insists that in order for Christ to attain functional and eschatological sonship then He must be the eternal Son of God
(ontological sonship).333 However, Garner argues that His sonship cannot produce a redemptive sonship if it is merely a static sonship, rather, Christ must be the Son of God incarnate who is the resurrected and adopted Son.334 This thought leads Garner to conclude that Christ cannot bring believers eschatological (adoptive) sonship if He has not attained eschatological (adoptive) sonship.335
Garner uses verses such as Romans 1:3-4 and Philippians 2:5-11 to support his argument.336 In reference to the beginning of Romans, Garner states that the words of declaration entail more than just an affirmation of Christ’s sonship.337 Rather, it is a statement regarding Paul’s understanding of the adoption of the incarnate Son. He holds the same understanding for the paternal words of God when He affirms the sonship of
331 Ibid, 187. 332 Ibid, 183-190. 333 Ibid, 194. 334 Ibid. 335 Ibid. 336 Ibid, 195-207. 337 Ibid, 199. Romans 1:3-4, “…the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…” NRSV. 91
Christ including during events such as Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration (Matt. 3:17,
12:18, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22, 9:35). Garner interprets the words as more than the affirmation of and declaration of Christ’s eternal sonship, he argues that they are markers of Christ’s filial and covenantal progress.338
He writes that to think of justification and sanctification apart from adoption produces an abstract salvation that tears redemptive grace from a familial and Christological foundation.339 However, there are problems with Garner’s statement, not because he is wrong in asserting the need for justification and sanctification to be accompanied by an understanding of adoption but because of how he connects the three together.340 Despite the base for Garner’s statement being at issue, he is correct in his need to connect the three.
For Garner, the three are connected through union with Christ.341 This is not incorrect. For Garner, in union, adoption is what defines the believer and from there the adopted believer can manifest the Redeemer’s justification and sanctification.342
Adoption is achieved in Christ and then applied to the believer in union with Him.343 It can be seen, therefore, that for Garner, adoption is the benefit of union with Christ and from this benefit justification and sanctification are core subsets. Garner works from what he calls a “union with Christ sourced ordo salutis with adoption as the inclusive benefit,” which causes adoption to be the central component of his thought.344 Consequently,
338 Ibid. 339 Ibid, 227. 340 Ibid, 254-314. 341Ibid, 304-311. 342 Ibid, 307-309. 343 Ibid, 268-278. 344 Ibid, 308. 92
Garner may go too far in the opposing direction of Bavinck. While Bavinck appears to place a lack of emphasis on adoption Garner may place too much emphasis on this doctrine.
It can be argued against Garner that justification, though not separate from adoption, needs to be understood as logically happening prior, though not with a temporal difference. Once justification is given and righteousness is seen on the believer’s behalf because of what Christ has done, then the beauty of adoption can be seen to come to the fore. By using Bavinck’s theological model of justification and sanctification one will not fall into this error. Nevertheless, Garner’s emphasis on the importance of adoption should not be discarded despite going too far with the adoption metaphor as it pertains to Christ.
Garner is not alone in the understanding of Christ being both the eternal and adopted incarnate Son. Robert Peterson also sees Christ’s resurrection as being a declaration of
Christ’s adoption as the incarnate Son.345 However, Peterson sees Jesus’ baptism, transfiguration, and ascension as also proclaiming Jesus as God’s divine-human Son in addition to being the eternal Son.346 Garner sees the words of the Father marking Christ’s progress towards adoption and understanding the resurrection as being the actual adoptive declaration. Peterson, on the other hand, appears to be taking each proclamation as an announcement of Christ’s adoptive sonship. Peterson, therefore, does not seem to be as concerned with the filial change that Garner accentuates.
345 Peterson, Adopted by God, 62. 346 Ibid, 59-63. 93
Solely Eternal
In trying to affirm Christ’s eternal and adoptive sonship, Garner argues against Burke who denies that Christ was ever adopted. Garner states that Burke makes a mistake by insisting that the absence of the term huiothesia in regards to Christ (Rom. 1:3-4) suggests an absence of the concept that Christ was also the adopted Son.347 In Garner’s mind, Burke jeopardizes the Christological point that Jesus’ newly attained sonship marked the satisfaction of the Father and secured the eschatological kingdom and the people of God as sons of God.348 N. Westhead is of the same mind when he mentions that
Calvin did not see Christ’s resurrection as His adoption. Westhead maintains that if
Calvin had understood the resurrection as adoption then Calvin’s understanding of the relation between the believer’s adoption and Christ’s would have been enhanced.349 What
Westhead observes in Calvin is also found in Bavinck.350
To return to Burke and Garner, the latter argues against Burke’s statement that huiothesia distinguishes the redeemed from the Redeemer. Garner insists that because huios is used for both Christ and for believers then the categorical distinction between the two is unfounded.351 However, in argument to this statement, it could be said that this is an implication of Paul’s use of adoption. Paul is not trying to separate the Divine sonship
347 Garner, Sons in the Son, 202-203. 348 Ibid, 203. 349 N. Westhead, “Adoption in the Thought of John Calvin,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 13, no. 2 (1995): 146. 350 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 233, 419; Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 227. 351 Garner, Sons in the Son, 204. 94 of Christ from the spiritual sonship of Christians, rather, he is trying to draw them together as closely as he can.352
Flowing from the above point, by using the term ‘adoption’ Paul can use huios both for Christ and for believers. As an adopted son the believer enters into the family of God as a co-heir with Christ (Rom. 8:17). This returns to the significance of the Roman understanding of adoption – it is not necessary that the heir is biologically the child of the father in order to be an heir. It does not make sense, therefore, for Garner to be using this point against Burke. Indeed the use of huios for both Christ and those that have been placed as sons showcases the grace and glory of God rather than as emphasizing the adoption of the incarnate Son of God.
Garner raises another point against Burke in saying that he confuses the relationship between Christology and soteriology. His question is this: “If the filial status of the Son with the Father is not vitally changed by the resurrection in history, of what real significance is the resurrection for the adoption of the redeemed?”353 Garner argues that insisting that huiothesia is soteriological and not Christological means that the believer must be therefore receiving a benefit from Christ that is not attained by Christ.354 The need to recognize that it is in Christ that one receives the benefits of salvation, including adoption, is correct.
Through this discussion, it appears that Garner maybe stretching the metaphor of adoption too far. First, if one is to apply a metaphor to assist in the explanation of
352 Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World, 139. 353 Garner, Sons in the Son, 204. 354 Ibid, 203. 95 something then one needs to stay within the boundaries of the metaphor. By saying that
Christ was eternally the Son and yet the adopted Son then the conclusion is that Christ is either of two substances or was adopted when he was already the Son. Legally, adoption is to bring one who is not the family into the family. By saying that Christ is both eternal and adopted Son then the adoption metaphor has been misused.
In Garner’s thought that Christ cannot give what he has not been given a question arises. Cannot the Son give the believer sonship? In this way, Christ is giving a benefit that he has but due to the believer not already being within the family of God, he or she must then be placed into the family. This is the concept of huiothesia – to be placed as a son. It is through Christ’s incarnation, life, death, and resurrection that one can be redeemed and placed as a child of God, enter into union with Christ, and await glorification with the Elder Brother (Rom. 8:30).
As it is Paul’s writings that contain reference to adoption, one would do well to turn to his words. In Romans 8, Paul writes that it is those that have been predestined that have been justified and also glorified (v. 30). Dunn writes that the divine sonship of believers is determined by the Spirit of God and now believers experience their adoption in “eschatological outpouring.”355 This outpouring is defined by the Spirit, as it is the
Spirit of adoption that assures believers of their adoption (v. 16).
In Ephesians, Paul writes that the adopted children of God have been predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ. Paul is stressing that the believer is in a privileged
355 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38a, (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 451. 96 relationship.356 Redemption and forgiveness are given through the blood of Christ so that the believer can be united to him and gain inheritance through him. It is those that are heirs that are given the inheritance; those that have been adopted as sons.
On the basis of the work done, it can be concluded that Garner has gone too far in the concept that Christ is both the eternal and adopted Son. While Garner is not arguing in regards to ontology he does take the adoption metaphor too far. Thus, this thesis will work from the basis that Christ is not the adopted and eternal Son but is solely the eternal
Son. Despite necessitating a change in Christ’s filial status Garner is correct in the need for union with Christ. This necessity is also found in Bavinck’s thought. It can be said, therefore, that in union one shares in Christ’s sonship. Additionally, Garner’s view of the necessity for both Greco-Roman thought and the redemptive-historical tradition of the
Old Testament to be the background of huiothesia is also a positive aspect of Garner’s thought. Finally, the importance Garner places on adoption in his understanding of salvation needs to be utilized.
Role in the Ordo Salutis
Andrew Lincoln writes that the sonship that believers are adopted into has God as its goal, it is a theocentric concept.357 Dunn writes that adoption is a status that is real for the believer, it is a status that showcases the transformation that occurs within the believer is not just from slave to freedman but from freedman to son.358 Adoption is thus a vital
356 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 42, (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 25. 357 Ibid. 358 Dunn, Romans 1-8, 452. 97 aspect of salvation. It has God as its centre and is real for the believer, it showcases the new relationship that the believer has with God. Where does this concept fit into the order of salvation? If adoption is understood as having a place in the ordo salutis then the nuances of the doctrine may be better understood. Having a comprehension of where adoption falls in the logical order of salvation will not only highlight the connections between doctrines, it may also clarify how Bavinck understands adoption and subsequently its role in salvation. It was noted previously that Bavinck understood adoption as being interconnected with the concepts of justification and sanctification. Is he alone in this understanding?
It was noted above that Garner’s view of Christ’s adoption flows from his understanding of where it falls within the ordo salutis. Understanding adoption and its place within salvation, therefore, has important implications for one’s soteriology as well as corresponding doctrines. Within an understanding of salvation throughout the history of Christianity, adoption has been seen as representing the whole of salvation, as a part of justification or redemption, as encompassing both justification and sanctification, or as having its own part in the order of salvation. It is important to think through the place and role that adoption has within the believer’s salvation. It can have implications not only for how one views one’s salvation but also how one comes to see the Church as a whole.
Understanding adoption and its place in salvation also has implications on one’s identity both as a Christian and as a member of the Church.
Picture of the Whole of Salvation
One view of adoption is that it encompasses the whole of salvation. It is not restricted to a singular role within the order of salvation nor is it placed within the dimensions of
98 another doctrine. Webb has commented that Calvin does not have a theology of adoption.359 However, Ferguson argues that this is not the case, rather, he sees adoption and sonship as undergirding everything Calvin writes.360 In this, Trumper would be in agreement with Calvin as he holds that within the historical order of salvation adoption is located in every part.361 Adoption by the paternal goodness of God the Father has been said to be Calvin’s favorite theme.362 In the Reformation, Calvin was the theologian for emphasizing the fatherhood of God and the adoption of believers. Unfortunately, not all theologians understand Calvin as having a high view of adoption because the Institutes does not have a separate section on adoption, rather it is found throughout the work.363
Billings writes that for Calvin, adoption is among the central images for his conception of what it means to be ‘in Christ.’ 364 Adoption is also used alongside engrafting and participation when bringing together the two sides of the duplex gratia, justification and sanctification.365 When speaking upon the life of a Christian in book three of the Institutes, Calvin writes that believers are to be brought into agreement and harmony with the righteousness of God, so as to conform to the adoption which they have received.366 The believer in conforming to his or her adoption is to also conform to the image of Christ, the One who reconciled the believer to God the Father.367
359 Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption, 17. 360 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” 82. 361 Trumper, “A Fresh Exposition of Adoption I,” 62-63. 362 B. A. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 120. 363 Calvin, Institutes. 364 Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, 19. 365 Ibid, 108. 366 Calvin, Institutes, 3.6.1. 367 Ibid, 3.6.3. 99
In regards to the duplex gratia, adoption is conditioned by it as well as being developed in a Trinitarian manner. In this manner, adoption is used as a key theological structure that holds together prayer and the sacraments.368 In this regard, Calvin writes that believers are to pray in a way that bears reference to the whole family of faith. It is through Christ that the believer is adopted into the family and as such can call God by the title of ‘Father,’369 and it is in thought of this family that prayer is to embrace all those that share in this grace.370
Through these brief examples, it can be seen that Calvin understands adoption and sonship as encompassing the whole of salvation. In this regard he is not alone, following in Calvin’s example was the Puritan Stephen Marshall, who, as Beeke points out, holds that adoption can be used to describe the whole of salvation.371 Beeke maintains that the
Puritans saw spiritual adoption as being both the excellence and apex of God’s salvation.372 For them, adoption is not regeneration, justification, or sanctification but a matter of its own beauty.
Mueller in describing adoption writes that it is the whole salvation in Christ, as such he sees it to be immaterial whether adoption is linked with regeneration or justification, or is the final goal of man’s spiritual reclamation by the Holy Spirit.373 Prior to Mueller writing was the Puritan John Cotton, he believed that adoption had great significance on many aspects of one’s life. Beeke states that for Cotton the significance of adoption
368 Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, 141. 369 Calvin, Institutes, 3.20.36. 370 Ibid, 3.20.38. 371 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 18. 372 Ibid, 17. 373 Mueller, “Adoption,” 224. 100 affects one’s relationship to God, to the world, to the future, to ourselves, and to the church as the family of God.374 Seen in the writings of these men, adoption is understood to be predominantly an overarching effect of the salvation that Christ provides: a glorious reality that encompasses the whole of the Christian life and influences how one sees a variety of relationships.
In writing his Ph.D. dissertation, Garner agreed that adoption should never be placed in the order of salvation as an individual aspect. Rather, adoption should be regarded as an all-embracing doctrine that holds the whole of soteriology in its fullness.375 In his recent book, Sons in the Son, Garner continues to understand adoption as having an all- encompassing role in the matter of salvation. For him, adoption embraces the whole of what the union with Christ manifests. 376 However, he does spend a significant amount of time looking at adoption and its specific role within the ordo salutis.377 While this view allows for the familial aspect of salvation to be grasped it may cause the particular interplay of justification, adoption, and sanctification to be lost.
A Part of Justification
Unfortunately for the discussion of adoption, it has long been held to be simply another part of justification.378 Ferguson holds that Luther stressed justification at expense of emphasizing the privilege of sonship and as such it became subservient to justification, at best the seal of justification.379 He also argues that the influence of the
374 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 68-74. 375 Ibid, 19. 376 Garner, Sons in the Son, 307. 377 Ibid, 287-314. 378 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” 83. 379 Ibid, 81. 101
English-speaking reformed theology of Turretin has caused adoption to continually be seen as subservient to justification as he equates the two doctrines with one another.380
While Turretin does have a section on adoption, he clearly emphasizes that it is the other part of justification.381 He writes that, by adopting, God changes the heart and impresses upon the one adopted the mind and character of sons by the Spirit of adoption.382 Following from that he argues that it is to no purpose that one asks how justification and adoption differ, for adoption is included within justification.383 If adoption is included within justification and, therefore, is no different why differentiate the two? Why not merely say that the right to eternal life is found in justification? By placing adoption within and underneath justification would not the two lose a part of their true meaning?
If adoption is not merely the familial side of justification, what is it? In other words, if adoption is more than a purely legal aspect of salvation what role does it play in the believer’s life? It was mentioned above that adoption has been seen as an all- encompassing aspect of salvation. It is a picture of the whole of salvation. If that is the case then trying to understand its role within the ordo salutis need not be pursued.
However, if adoption is not just a picture of the whole but has its own unique place in the order of salvation then the effort must be put into discovering what role it does play. This is important as the difference between understanding the order of salvation as containing
380 Ibid, 83. 381 Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 666-669. 382 Ibid, 667. 383 Ibid, 668. 102 a separate element of adoption and the order of salvation containing no specific reference to adoption may change how one views other important doctrines.
Separate Role in the Ordo Salutis
The final view that is to be considered is that of adoption being understood in a more limited sense. In this regard, adoption is closely linked to justification and sanctification in that it is held to coming between the two doctrines within a logical order. The
Westminster Assembly produced the Westminster Confession of Faith as well as both the larger and shorter catechisms. The Confession of Faith was the last major confessional statement of the Reformation and has a major influence on confessions to follow.384
Found in the twelfth chapter of the Confession, adoption is located between justification and sanctification. It states that:
All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption, by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God, have His name put upon them, receive the spirit of adoption, have access to the throne of grace with boldness, are enabled to cry, Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by Him as by a Father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.385
The Westminster divines therefore agreed that adoption was to be seen as its own privilege apart from justification. Beeke writes that in the Confession, justification is seen
384 Jaroslav Pelikan, and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Part Four: Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, vol. 2, Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 601. 385Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland, The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; with the Scripture Proofs at Large; Together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge (Contained in the Holy Scriptures, and Held Forth in the Said Confession and Catechisms), and Practical Use Thereof, (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1973), 60-61. 103 as involving the legal relationship while adoption involves more of a personal relationship, as such, both involve the title of inheritance but on different grounds where adoption involves privileges that are not dependent on justification.386 This is not to say that one can be adopted outside of justification. Far from it – the Confession makes it clear that justification and adoption are closely linked, for those that are justified are also adopted.
In the same vein of understanding, the Westminster Shorter Catechism places adoption between justification and sanctification. In answer to question 34, the Catechism states that, “Adoption is an act of God’s free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.”387 It is seen here that it is the privileges of adoption, and therefore also the inheritance, that comes with being an adopted child of God that plays a large part of the divines’ understanding of the doctrine.
Edward Leigh, a contributor to the Westminster Standards, was unique in his understanding of adoption. When placing it within the ordo salutis he treated adoption before the doctrine of justification.388 Most, however, see justification as coming before adoption. This may be predominantly due to the influence of the Confession itself which sees adoption being the consequence of justification.389 Fesko sees that within the
Westminster Standards adoption is a benefit of justification.390 Justification, therefore, is seen as being given to those that have faith in Jesus Christ and are seen as righteous through Him. It is Christ’s obedience that allows for justification to be given. Those that
386 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 28-33. 387 Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland, The Confession of Faith, 297. 388 Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards, 235. 389 Ibid, 236. 390 Ibid, 237. 104 have received this justification are then, according to the authors of the Standards, given the grace of adoption.
A brief survey shows some slight variations on the understanding of adoption’s relation to justification and its position within the ordo salutis. Webb understands adoption as connecting to justification, however, he also sees it as connecting to regeneration.391 Stibbe, on the other hand, adheres more closely to the understanding of the Confession and sees it as linking justification with sanctification.392 Herman
Ridderbos, in his examination of Paul’s works, writes that because adoption and justification both come from redemption they are equivalents, but each draw a slightly different picture of salvation and as such allow the believer to understand what has been completed more fully.393
In looking at the question of whether adoption plays a specific role within the order of salvation or is a picture of the whole of salvation, Beeke insists that it is not an “either- or” but a “both-and” proposition.394 Additionally, in the time between writing his Ph.D. and Sons in the Son Garner has come to believe that adoption is an inclusive benefit of justification and sanctification.395 In other words, adoption is both the picture of salvation but also a specific benefit of being in union with Christ. Despite this “both-and” concept it is best to understand adoption in a more limited manner as it allows the interactions between other doctrines to be conceptualized with more clarity. It also brings about a
391 Webb, The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption, 21. 392 Stibbe, From Orphans to Heirs, 60. 393 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard DeWitt, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 197. 394 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 19. 395 Garner, Sons in the Son, 304-311. 105 fuller picture of salvation that is not defined by one doctrine but allows for the interplay of the different aspects of salvation which results in a fuller picture of salvation.
Summary
Despite having been one of the more neglected doctrines of the Christian Church adoption still carries great importance for the believer. Whether adoption was neglected because it has been placed within or under justification, or because of its implications of predestination, this doctrine has been seen by some as the apex of the Christian faith. One must be careful when dealing with it, however, so as to not combine the Pauline language with the Johannine understanding of sonship and dilute the implications of what Paul and
John were trying to portray. Though both are telling of the beauty of the gospel of Christ and the grace of God who has deemed to bring the believer into the family of God there are differences between the two.
John works to safeguard the difference between the eternal divine sonship of Christ and the sonship of believers. Paul, on the other hand, works to draw them together in a way that showcases the union between the Son and the adopted children of God. When looking to understand both of these biblical writers one does best to deal with them separately.
The background to Paul’s use of adoption, huiothesia, is perhaps one of the most contested areas within this doctrine. Throughout the discussion on whether Paul was drawing from the Roman legal system or an Exodus typology, it was determined that
Paul was bringing both together. He took the analogy of adoption from its first-century
106 context and drew it together with the prominent Old Testament theme of God choosing for Himself the people of Israel as his son.
At first, it appeared that the concept of Christ being the incarnate adopted Son of God had no bearing upon the discussion of the believer’s adoption. However, due to Garner’s assertion that the believer cannot be adopted as a child of God without Christ Himself being adopted, the conversation was deemed to be important. It was argued that Christ is solely the eternal Son and that as the declared and affirmed Son of God He could bring believers into sonship, making them the adopted children of God and fellow heirs with
Himself.
The conversation of Christ’s adoption led to the role of adoption within the ordo salutis. It was seen that Garner’s understanding of adoption’s role in the believer’s salvation played an important role in his assertion that Christ must be the adopted incarnate Son of God. It was also seen that adoption can be understood as a picture of the whole of salvation and as such has implications for many doctrines. In addition to being seen on a picture of the whole, adoption is also understood to be a unique benefit of union with Christ. It is this aspect of adoption, regarding its specific placement and role within the order of salvation will be studied further. Adoption truly is the gracious act of the
Triune God, wherein the Father has predestined believers as His sons, Christ the Son brings believers into His family, and the Holy Spirit makes us aware and assures believers of their adoption as they cry, as their Elder Brother did, ‘Abba, Father!’ (Mark
14:36; Rom. 8:15-17).
This chapter has set up an understanding of adoption that can be used to draw out the concept of adoption drawing together justification and sanctification. As a legal concept,
107 adoption connects with justification. In the same way as justification, adoption is a legal declaration that shows the change in relationship to God. Justification accounts to the person legal righteousness, adoption grants to the believer sonship. However, adoption is not purely forensic, while the act of adoption is forensic in nature the result of this act, being the adopted child, is ethical. In this manner, adoption is connected to sanctification.
Sanctification is ethical in that it is a process that is lived out, one is becoming made in the image of Christ. Adoption is connected to this as the believer is in a new relationship with God, as his or her Father, and is living out this new relationship. In this manner, adoption connects the legal elements of justification with the moral nature of sanctification. This will be explored more in the final chapter, particularly as it relates to
Bavinck.
108
Chapter Four:
Adoption in Relation to Justification and Sanctification
Following from the conclusions from the previous chapter, a theology of adoption can be constructed. Adoption, huiothesia, is a Pauline concept that refers to ‘being placed as a child.’396 It is heavily situated in familial language and it is a legal concept that has ethical implications. It is based on both Greco-Roman culture and the redemptive- historical traditions of the Old Testament.397 In regards to the Greco-Roman background, adoption can be seen as having importance in that the power of the old family is removed.398 Additionally, the one who is adopted represents the family,399 even to the extent that for those that are outside of the family the adoptee is the personification of the family.400
396 Trumper, “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption,” 132. 397 Garner, Sons in the Son, 49. 398 Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 86. 399 Ibid, 109. 400 Despite the physical similarities between humanity, the legal and spiritual reality of the children of God differs from those who have not been adopted. The believer becomes the representative to the other members of humanity. This implication can be understood partially in the Roman legal concept of adoption that the heir is more than the legal representative but is the personification of the family. There was a continuation of personality between the heir and ancestor. In spite of this practice being based around the patriarchal family cult, the concept that Christians, as members of the family of God, reconciled to Him through Christ, are a personification of the family appears to be utilized in Paul’s thought. He writes that “we are ambassadors for Christ, God [is] making his appeal through us” (2 Cor. 5:20 E.S.V.). He also called himself an “ambassador in chains” for the gospel (Eph. 6:20 E.S.V.). In this way, believers are the representatives, the personification of the family, by which those who are outside of the family can understand the reality of the family of God. 109
Concerning the redemptive-historical background, we learned that adoption has a covenantal aspect.401 The sonship that was unveiled in the Old Testament comes to full fruition in the New Testament. Believers are able to share in the sonship of the eternal
Son. Adoption, therefore, can be used as a picture of the whole of salvation.402 However, adoption holds with it a ‘both-and’ aspect as it plays a role in the order of salvation.403
Additionally, adoption also holds an eschatological tension of being here-and-not-yet.
Believers are assured of their salvation and yet still wait for the consummation of their adoption (Rom. 8:16, 23).
One must remember Bavinck’s words “true religion embraces the whole person in relation to God.”404 Adoption helps to bring out this understanding of the whole person being brought into the family of God. The believer’s whole self is redeemed and renewed and he or she is being made into the image of the One who loved and paid the ultimate price so that he or she may go to the end of the road that Adam had to walk. For Bavinck, then, adoption may connect his concepts of justification and sanctification.
Bavinck understands justification and sanctification to be of great importance in the salvation of the individual.405 In his understanding of the order of salvation, Bavinck makes sure that these two doctrines each have a place. For him, he understands there to
For more information concerning the nature of the legal personification of the legal heir in Roman cultic practices as it pertains to adoption see: Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 108-109. 401 Derek W. H. Thomas, “The Mediator of the Covenant,” in Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis, by David W. A. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, the Calvin 500 Series, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2008), 209; Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 78-92. 402 Ibid, 18-19. 403 Ibid, 19. 404 Bavinck, Prolegomena, 236. 405 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 200, 205, 232, 249. 110 be four groups of benefits that must be treated in the order of salvation, calling (with regeneration in a restricted sense, faith, and repentance), justification, sanctification, and glorification.406 It is seen here that adoption does not have a separate role in the ordo salutis for Bavinck. However, like Calvin, the concept of sonship, especially through adoption, is important for the Dutch theologian.
It was noted in chapter two that Bavinck understands justification as being the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer. While faith plays an important role, faith is not a work that brings about justification and salvation but is the faith that has Christ as its object and content, for righteousness is granted in Christ.407 It is union with Christ that is an important pillar in Bavinck’s understanding of justification for it is Christ who is the believer’s righteousness. Justification, therefore, is fully a gift of God, a gift of grace, which goes contrary to human understanding. Though it does not rest on good works, justification, a forensic concept, does not exist without ethical transformation.408 There is both an active and passive element to justification and while Bavinck sees distinctions between the two, it was established that they cannot be separated.
Sanctification, in Bavinck’s work, is intricately tied with justification. They are both rooted in union with Christ.409 Just as Christ was seen to be the believer’s righteousness so too is He the believer’s holiness. Sanctification also occurs in passive and active concepts.410 In the passive concept, it is God who, having made salvation complete, has sanctified the believer, but in the active concept there is a continual sanctification as the
406 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 595. 407 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 211-212. 408 Ibid, 249. 409 Ibid, 232-237, 248-252. 410 Ibid, 252-256. 111 believer devotes him or herself to God.411 Good works are, therefore, a dynamic part of justification and sanctification as there is the ethical development of the believer who knows him or herself to be justified by the work of Christ, and is now free from the guilt and hold of sin to live as a child of God in obedience to Him who first showed great love and grace. In both justification and sanctification, the Holy Spirit plays a vital role.
In this last chapter, Bavinck’s conception of adoption will be examined as it relates to justification and sanctification. As was seen in chapter two, Bavinck does not have a full theological doctrine of adoption. This chapter will offer a construction from Bavinck’s wider theology so that development from his conceptions can be made with the work done in chapter three. This will allow for the proposal of an expanded understanding of
Bavinck’s allusion to adoption connecting the legal nature of justification with the moral ethical nature of sanctification.
Bavinck’s Understanding
How does Bavinck understand the connection between justification, adoption, and sanctification? He holds a high view of sonship; though Bavinck did have a tendency to conflate Pauline and Johannine texts, his understanding of sonship is deeply rooted in the concept that the believer is adopted into the family of God as His child.412 With this adoption, the believer is now able to call Him Father. Bavinck writes that “the state of grace and of glory, in which the church of Christ is a participant both here and in the hereafter, is most splendidly described in Holy Scripture as the state of the children of
411 Ibid, 253. 412 Ibid, 226-229. 112
God, as participation in the divine nature, as the vision of God, as eternal life, as heavenly bliss, and so forth.”413 It can be seen here, therefore, that the state of being a child of God is of great importance to Bavinck.
For the Whole Person
In addition to understanding the state of being a child of God as one of the most splendid ways in which Scripture describes the state of grace and glory, Bavinck believed that “we become human to the degree that we are children of God.”414 This statement of
Bavinck’s is intricately wound up in his understanding that grace restores nature.415 One of the biggest motifs in Bavinck is this concept that grace is not just restoring the spiritual portion of a person but of the entire universe.416 All nature will be restored through the grace of God as sin is defeated, this includes the whole of the person, both the spiritual and natural aspects.417 Bavinck is, therefore, seeing a restoration of a person’s humanity in the state of grace and glory that a person enters into by the love of God.
For Bavinck it is due to common grace that the human race has existence and life, that there is expansion and development among people, there are states and societies, religion and morality, arts and sciences.418 He contends that everything that after the fall is still good, even in sinful humans, is the fruit of God’s common grace.419 He writes that
413 Bavinck, God and Creation, 542. 414 Bavinck, Prolegomena, 243. 415 Ibid, 302. 416 Common grace is one of the defining aspects of neo-Calvinism, for more information regarding this doctrine see: Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America, 19- 20, 31; Heslam and Kuyper, Creating a Christian Worldview, 259. 417 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 435-436. 418 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 218. 419 Ibid. 113 after the fall people have remained human and continue to share in the blessings of God’s common grace. Due to common grace humanity can inwardly possess many virtues and outwardly do many good deeds, many of which are of a great value for human life.420
However, Bavinck is clear in saying that this does not mean that they are good in the eyes of God and correspond to the full spiritual sense of His holy law.421
Bavinck argues that common grace is subservient to special or particular grace.422
Grace, he writes, is distributed in a twofold form, that of common grace and special grace. Common grace is directed toward restraining evil; the world is sustained and spared, guided and preserved for special grace.423 Special grace is directed at renewing the world.424 Bavinck holds that both have their unity in Christ.425 Adoption as a child of
God would, therefore, fall under the concept of special grace within Bavinck’s thought.
Bavinck understood revelation as aiming at a re-creation of the whole person and, as such, the person must accept and apply the revelation of Christ to the whole of their person.426 This is important for a theology of adoption as it shows an understanding of the whole person, both spiritual and natural, as well as rational and emotional, being redeemed by the grace of God. In this, Bavinck also understands salvation to be fully
Trinitarian.427 For Bavinck, the whole of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, works and
420 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 256-257. 421 Ibid, 257. 422 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 420. 423 Ibid, 436. 424 Ibid. 425 Ibid. For more information regarding Bavinck and common grace see: Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace;” Bavinck, “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common Grace.’” 426 Bavinck, Prolegomena, 349. 427 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 490. 114 applies salvation. What Christ gained for His people in justification and sanctification also includes freedom from guilt and pollution.428 This freedom is also for the whole of nature. Likewise, the Holy Spirit’s work in redemption is also linked to creation; natural life is renewed in Bavinck’s mind.429
Bavinck’s background of pietism, as explored in the first chapter, played an important role in his theological understanding. In addition to his thought having the element of the
Gospel being significant for every aspect of human life,430 Bavinck sought to keep the need for moral and spiritual discipline in all spheres of life, as was stressed by the divines of the Dutch Second Reformation.431 The idea of applying Christianity to all spheres of life was a prominent point of Dutch neo-Calvinism under Kuyper.432 It has been argued by Beeke, however, that Kuyper’s followers may have gone too far with their rejection of many semblances of piety and by externalizing the gospel in their attempts at Kingdom activity.433
Though Bavinck was also of the mind to act out Christian understanding in all spheres of life, he also sought to keep Scripture and Christ at the center.434 Perhaps his emphasis on the believer being a child of God was an attempt to point towards one’s relationship with God. It is as if he is saying “Look! We are now children of God, our whole nature is being restored. Our relationship with God has radically changed! Now we
428 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 179. 429 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ. 430 Heideman, Bavinck, and Brunner, The Relation of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck, 220. 431 Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance, 302. 432 Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America, 16. 433 Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance, 305. 434 Bavinck, “The Future of Calvinism,” 4. 115 must live in childlike obedience out of love for our Father who has shown us much love and grace. He is restoring all of creation, He sent His Son to win for us justification and sanctification which has now been applied to us. The Holy Spirit has also been sent, assuring us of our status as His child. We are to live as a child of God because we are His children!”
Bavinck not only portrayed salvation as being for the whole person, with grace restoring nature, he also understood salvation to have covenantal aspects.435 Bavinck would agree with Garner’s remark that the new covenant has not only legal (justification) and transformative (sanctification) aspects but also a familial aspect, that of adoption/sonship.436 Bavinck did not think that the concept of God’s kingdom being simultaneously a family (a community) was a point of tension within the kingdom.
Rather, he held that the ideas of God’s kingship and fatherhood reinforces each aspect and reinforces the concept that entrance to the kingdom happens not through Pharisaic observance but through repentance, faith, and rebirth.437 It can be seen here that being made a child of God is an important concept for Bavinck, though there is the addition of
Johannine language.
In addition to the previous concept that God’s kingdom is also His family, the renewed understanding of God’s name reinforces the familial aspect of one’s new relationship with God. Bavinck emphasizes the importance of Jesus’ deepened revelation of the believer’s communion with God through the name of ‘Father’. He wrote that the name of ‘Father’ expresses an ethical relation in which God, through His Son, stands to
435 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 485. 436 Garner, Sons in the Son, 34. 437 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 246. 116 all of those that He now calls His children.438 Bavinck continues in this line of thinking by saying that the relation between God and humanity has been deepened and expanded.439 This is important to a development of adoption within Bavinck’s thought as by being able to call God ‘Father’ the relation between the Father and His child is highlighted and is seen to be a relationship that is marked as personal, ethical, and individual.440
Bavinck held that God is truly the greatest good for all of humanity and the greatest of all things is to be in communion with Him.441 Adding to this, the concept of a renewed relationship between humanity and God, to be His child, shows a renewal of the communion that the believer has with God. For Bavinck it is not only the whole person who is impacted in salvation, the nature of communion between God and humanity is also radically changed. There is now a renewed communion in sonship. A communion that has been gifted to the believer in his or her adoption as a child of God.
Importance of Union with Christ
This communion between God and the believer cannot be established without the work of Christ. For Garner, union with Christ was of central importance to his understanding of justification and sanctification flowing from the adoption of the believer.442 Union with Christ is also an important element for Bavinck, Burger went so far as to call it a central theme for the Dutch theologian.443 Bavinck emphasizes that there
438 Bavinck, God and Creation, 147. 439 Ibid. 440 Ibid. 441 Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” 110. 442 Garner, Sons in the Son, 304-311. 443 Burger, Being in Christ, 90. 117 is no communion with the benefits of salvation without communion with Christ.444 In his analysis of Bavinck, Burger understands him to be focusing on five points, that Christ is one’s salvation, His person and work cannot be separated, there needs to be union with the whole of Christ, He is the totality of all of His blessings, and righteousness and holiness are given to the believer in His person.445
Burger continues to write that Bavinck understands that without union with Christ, the believer cannot share in Christ’s benefits, communion must be had with the person of
Christ.446 This flows from the concept that union is an act of God, wherein there is an imputation and gift of Christ to the believer. 447 Bavinck argues that all the benefits of grace have been “completely and solely acquired in Christ.” 448 Believers are now a part of the “covenant of grace, the mystical union, the imputation of Christ to his church and of the church to Christ.”449 Seen here and in chapter two, union with Christ is a vital aspect of Bavinck’s understanding of salvation. This is essential to an understanding of adoption as it is through union with Christ that one is able to have sonship. Unlike Garner who joins justification and sanctification together through union with the adopted Son,
Bavinck understands the connection to be through union with the declared Son of God and through the work of the Holy Spirit.450 Both scholars share the importance of union, however, Bavinck highlights the work of the Spirit and does not necessitate Christ to be adopted in order to share His sonship with believers.
444 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 248-252. 445 Burger, Being in Christ, 108. 446 Ibid, 117. 447 Ibid, 118. 448 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 591. 449 Ibid. 450 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 251. 118
Bavinck understands the gift of the Holy Spirit as being the first benefit that Christ gives to believers after His glorification.451 It is the Spirit who applies the benefits of salvation that has been acquired by Christ, by Him the believer is united personally with
Jesus Christ.452 In this way, Bavinck sees the Holy Spirit’s role as vital to salvation.
Without union with Christ, there would be no justification, no sanctification, and no adoption. Without the Holy Spirit, there would be no union with Christ. Consequently, the work of the Holy Spirit not only unites the believer with Christ but is also vital in keeping justification, sanctification, and the other benefits of Christ’s work connected.
Gaffin is correct in saying that apart from the life-giving Spirit there cannot be life, there cannot be justification, sanctification, adoption, or any other saving reality.453
Bavinck understands the Holy Spirit to be the spirit of wisdom, truth, power, and glory, it is by Him that Christ sanctifies the church and in Him that Christ communicates
Himself and His benefits of adoption as children and mystical union.454 It is to those that believe that God grants the Spirit, the One who is the Spirit of consolation, the Spirit of adoption as children, and of sanctification.455 The Holy Spirit is the author of new life.
Bavinck understands that the believer’s faith is not just an acceptance of the witness of
God but also the beginning and principle of a new lifestyle.456 A life in which the Spirit sanctifies the believer, applies to him or her the benefits of Christ, and assures him or her of the new status that he or she has, that of a child of God. It is in the Spirit that
451 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 89-90. 452 Burger, Being in Christ, 119. 453 Richard B. Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology, 2nd ed., (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub, 1987), 142. 454 Bavinck, God and Creation, 312. 455 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 90. 456 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 505. 119 justification, sanctification, and adoption are connected. Bavinck argues that the Spirit that Christ promised to His people is the Spirit of adoption and also the Spirit of renewal and sanctification.457 This is instrumental in the understanding of the relationship between adoption and sanctification.
It has been seen through this discussion that for Bavinck the role of the Spirit is vitally important in the believer’s new life. It is through the Spirit that union with Christ is possible. Through the union benefits that would never have been possible by the work of humanity are applied to believers. Not only does the Holy Spirit assure the believer of his or her adoption but He also applies justification and sanctification to the believer’s life.
Christ is the Son of God by nature. Bavinck writes that in the resurrection, Christ was declared to all that He was and is the Son of God according to the Spirit of holiness.458
Believers are children of God by adoption and through the Spirit of adoption, the believer is able to share in the sonship of Christ, which has been His for eternity. Bavinck tells of how believers have been justified in the Spirit of God so that by the Spirit of adoption they are made children of God, and they are then assured of their sonship by the same
Spirit.459
While Garner believed that sharing in Christ’s sonship meant being united in Christ and sharing in His adopted sonship,460 Bavinck is not of the same mind. Bavinck
457 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 251. 458 Ibid, 227. 459 Ibid. 460 Garner states that adopted sons manifest Christ’s adoption. Union becomes the centerpiece in this regard, in this union, adoption is what defines the believer and from there the adopted believer can manifest the Redeemer’s justification and sanctification. 120 understood union with Christ as coming through the Spirit.461 It is in the Spirit that the believer can share in Christ’s sonship. His sonship is from eternity and now believers can share in this sonship by entering into it through adoption. It is by the grace of God that the Spirit is the Spirit of adoption.
Justification
In union with Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit the believer is justified, adopted, and sanctified.462 Bavinck writes that a person is ungodly in an ethical sense but because of the righteousness that Christ has won the person, through union with Christ, becomes righteous in a juridical sense.463 He continues in this vein and says that God declares the sinner to be righteous, adopts them as children, and promises them Christ and all his benefits, it is for this reason that the believer is called righteous and will one day gain possession of all the treasures of grace.464 It was seen earlier that among these treasures of grace the completion of the believer’s adoption is one of the greatest treasures.
Garner writes as if adoption is another type of sonship and not the manner in which one comes to be called son. This adds to the importance he finds in calling Jesus the adopted Son of God in addition to being the eternal Son. As such, the adoption of Christ becomes the central point of how justification and sanctification come together. Adoption is accomplished by Christ and is then applied to the believer. The believer, in Garner’s mind, is united in the adopted Son resulting in his or her adoption and from that union flows justification and sanctification. Rather than the believer’s adoption into sonship flowing as a part of a threefold cord with the believer’s justification and sanctification from union with Christ who is already the Son and shares that sonship with believers, it is the adoption of Christ that seals salvation in Garner’s mind. Garner, Sons in the Son, 250-253. 461 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 89, 250-251. 462 Ibid, 251. 463 Ibid, 213. 464 Ibid. 121
Following in the line of thought that Bavinck is keeping adoption distinct, is his understanding of the twofold nature of the benefits that Christ has obtained for the believer in justification. Bavinck sees these two as forgiveness of sins and eternal life; he writes that they are not identical for “justification cannot be automatically equated with heavenly blessedness.”465 Bavinck later explains that linked to justification is the attribution of the right to eternal life which he describes as the adoption. 466 Despite linking them closely together Bavinck considers adoption as children to be distinct from forgiveness.467 Therefore, in Bavinck’s thought, there is a close connection between justification and adoption while still allowing for adoption to be distinct.
While Garner appeared to work from a more all-encompassing conception of adoption Bavinck appears to take a more limited approach. This limited concept is preferable as it allows for the legal dimensions of salvation to not be overshadowed by the familial aspects that are found in adoption. However, Bavinck may limit adoption too much in the same manner that Garner may overemphasize the adoption aspect of salvation. By having a view of adoption that is separate from justification while still limited, the different aspects of salvation can be seen together without one aspect overpowering the others. This will also allow for a more rounded conception of God as just, holy, and loving Father.
Bavinck understands passive justification as occurring in that God acquits the believer in their conscience and by His Spirit bears witness with their own spirits that
465 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 394. 466 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 226. 467 Ibid. 122 they are children of God and heirs of eternal life.468 Again it is seen that Bavinck is keeping justification and adoption closely connected through the work of the Spirit.
Bavinck argues that it is through rebirth, faith, and conversion that humanity can receive and enjoy the forgiveness of sins and adoption as children of God, as well as, peace, joy, sanctification, and glorification.469 Bavinck is combining the Johannine term of rebirth with the Pauline one of adoption. Despite this, his point is clear, entrance into the family of God is one of the greatest benefits that the believer is gifted in grace.
Sanctification
What of sanctification? It is apparent that Bavinck connected adoption and justification but how are these related to sanctification? It must be remembered that
Bavinck worked, much like Calvin, to keep the connections between justification and sanctification close. Bavinck wrote that “[e]thical transformation is not optional. Lack of transformation invariably signifies the absence of having been truly justified. However, justification is not in any way dependent on ethical transformation.”470 He makes sure to specify that Christ does not justify anyone whom He does not also sanctify.471
Additionally, Bavinck is sure to state that while one is not justified by works it is true also that no one is justified without works.472
468 Ibid, 219. 469 Ibid, 179. 470 Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 260. 471 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 200. 472 Prior to this point Bavinck had stated that God does not accept the person on account of the works, but the works on account of the person.” It is clear, therefore, that for Bavinck an active Christian life is the result of being in union with Christ. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 191, 200. 123
For Bavinck, though sanctification is not a postscript to justification, it is a result in part on reflection of justification. This must be carefully said as Bavinck understands passive sanctification to be imputed from Christ and is fully found in Christ.473 However, active sanctification, for Bavinck is a matter of the believer, equipped and strengthened by the Spirit, dedicating his or her life to the service and will of God.474
In working through understanding Bavinck’s concept of ethics, Bolt quotes Bavinck saying that it is easier to curse capital, condemn war, and reject culture than it is to walk in all areas as a child of God and to imitate Christ.475 It is seen, therefore, that Bavinck believes that it is required of believers to walk in all areas as a child of God and to imitate the eternal Son of God. Ortlund writes that for Bavinck, the forensic nature of justification showcases God’s divine benevolence of free acquittal and is, therefore, conducive to worship.476
Bavinck argues that “in justification we have been granted peace with God, sonship, free and certain access to the throne of grace, freedom from the law, and independence from the world” from this faith will “naturally flow a stream of good works.”477 Coming from his pietistic background, Bavinck wants dogmatics to help illumine the work of God and to help impress upon the believer a Christ-focused life. Under no circumstances would Bavinck want dogmatic theology to hinder the life that it is meant to nurture.478
From the outset of his Reformed Dogmatics, he clearly articulates that dogmatics and
473 Ibid, 252-253. 474 Ibid, 253. 475 Bolt, “Christ and the Law in the Ethics of Herman Bavinck,” 71. 476 Ortlund, “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend,’” 252. 477 Italics mine. Ibid, 229. 478 Ibid, 252. 124 ethics are interrelated. He writes that “[d]ogmatics is the system of the knowledge of
God” and “ethics is that service of God.”479
Justification and sanctification are seen to be rooted in Christ. He is both the believer’s righteousness and his or her holiness.480 This does not mean that the believer has no active role in his or her spiritual life. As an adopted child of God, the believer is strengthened by the Spirit and equipped to worship Him who has shown great love and to obey in childlike faith the will of the One who can now be called Father.481 United together in union with Christ and application by the Spirit, justification, adoption, and sanctification are blessed realities in the life of the believer.
Bavinck writes that “[t]hose who are born of God increasingly become the children of
God and bear his image and likeness, because in principle they already are his children.”482 He understands the believer as someone who is ever becoming more and more what he or she is.483 This is a matter of sanctification. The believer has been justified, adopted, and sanctified and now he or she is to continue in this new life as a beloved child, he or she must be an imitator of God. Bavinck writes that the believer must live in love as Christ has loved them, for they are light in the Lord and must, therefore, walk as children of light.484 The Spirit then equips for a life that shows that the believer is
479 Bavinck, Prolegomena, 58. 480 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 248-250. 481 Ibid, 255. 482 Italics mine. Ibid. 483 Bavinck exclaims, “Become what you are!” This matter of living out what one is in Christ is, for Bavinck, a compelling reason to spur one on to a holy life. Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 255. 484 Ibid, 256. 125 justified, adopted as God’s child, is sanctified and becoming more sanctified, and now awaits the completion of his or her adoption and the inheritance of eternal life.
The Intertwining of Adoption
It is clear from the discussion above that Bavinck held the two distinct doctrines of justification and sanctification close together and that adoption was intricately intertwined in his discussion of both. All three are united in union with Christ where His righteousness, holiness, and sonship are now applied to the believer so that he or she is justified, sanctified, and adopted as God’s child.
It was seen that Bavinck holds together justification and sanctification by having them rooted in the believer’s union with Christ. In this way, both justification and sanctification are gifts of God. This can also be said of adoption. It is not through any work of the person that they are adopted into the family of God but by the grace of God that they are brought into His family, seen as dearly loved children. Despite Bavinck’s intertwining of adoption within both justification and sanctification he does appear to lack focus on the doctrine itself. Notwithstanding the theology we have constructed from his work there is no part where Bavinck focuses primarily on adoption and its implications on salvation bar a small section in his chapter on justification.485 A fuller development of adoption could have helped to overcome the flaw in Bavinck’s work concerning human ethical responsibility. This could be achieved through attention to the privileges and responsibilities that are inherent in adoption.
485 Ibid, 226-227. 126
A fuller, more developed doctrine of adoption could help clarify the tie between adoption and sanctification, and yield a greater focus on ethical sanctification without compromising Bavinck’s view of grace and works. In his attempt to highlight Christ as the believer’s holiness and connect sanctification with justification through union with
Christ Bavinck lacks emphasis on one’s personal responsibility. Though adoption is not fully neglected, working through a concept of one’s new communion with the Father brought about through adoption could have strengthened Bavinck’s attempt to connect justification and sanctification together and draw out one’s ethical responsibilities.
An emphasis on the “personal, relational, and participatory features” that are found in adoption can highlight the responsibilities that accompany the new status of being a child of God.486 Richard Longenecker points out that Paul highlights the ethical imperative that is a part of both Christian proclamation and commitment to Christ.487 This, in line with the metaphor of adoption, highlights the necessity for one to strive to live out the ethical implications of one’s forensic justification. Though one may fail ethically, the legal status that is one’s in Christ is not revoked due to this imperfection. Consequently, one’s status does not change though the relationship that one has with God can be strengthened and developed prompting one to act in accordance to the love that one has for the Father.
Bavinck did allude to adoption as connecting justification and sanctification.
Adoption, as a legal change in relationship with God, results in an ethical change. The believer, in a new relationship with God, lives out and grows in this relationship within the new identity of a child of God. The new privileges and responsibilities are now his or
486 Richard N. Longenecker, “The Metaphor of Adoption in Paul's Letters,” The Covenant Quarterly 72, no. 3-4 (August 2014): 76-77. 487 Ibid, 77. 127 hers. However, Bavinck did not expound on this issue. If he had developed this point he may have shown a connection with the legal nature of justification and the moral nature of sanctification through adoption. In doing so he would additionally maintain his avoidance with nomism and antinomianism.
Burger laments a lack of an eschatological nature in Bavinck’s concept of life in
Christ. He feels that there is a neglect of a relational character of union and communion with the person of Christ, and it is this neglect that makes it harder to see the eschatological character of salvation.488 If Bavinck had worked to make adoption more apparent in union with Christ then the relational character may have been more easily seen. Adoption would help to showcase the life of living in union with Christ as justified, sanctified, and adopted children of God. This would strengthen his concept of believers acting in obedience and with childlike faith to the will of the Father.
Randall Gleason argued that Benjamin Warfield minimized the element of human responsibility by making sanctification almost exclusively the sovereign act of God.489
Could the same be said of his Dutch contemporary? Was Bavinck’s focus so much on the benefits of Christ that he neglected the relational and active side to sanctification? Could have a greater focus on adoption and the new relationship with the Father that it entails have helped keep this problem at bay? It is beyond doubt that holy Christian living was of vital importance to Bavinck. If he had placed a greater emphasis on the relationship that adoption allows he would have been able to emphasize the way in which a believer ought
488 Burger, Being in Christ, 110. 489 Randall C. Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 255. 128 to live in obedient relationship with the Heavenly Father, by the works of Christ, and applied by the Spirit.
Bringing Adoption, Justification, and Sanctification Together
The observations concerning adoption that have been made throughout the duration of this thesis do not violate Bavinck’s theology but can be harmonized with it. This final section will construct a theology of justification and sanctification for Bavinck that incorporates a more fully-orbed view of adoption. This theology of justification and sanctification will not oppose Bavinck’s theology but will be consistent with his thought.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines justification as “an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.” 490 It is in this juridical field that the activity of God is emphasized. In accordance to the Westminster divines, therefore, justification is a gift from God. A person is justified through the work of Christ, it is what He has done, and not what humanity has done (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, 9, 18,
19, 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 1:30; Titus 3:5-7).
Justification is the legal act of God’s grace wherein He acquits a person of all guilt and punishment.491 The imputation of righteousness is a real change of status in which the believer is declared righteous by God.492 This righteousness is found in Christ, He is
490 Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland, The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; with the Scripture Proofs at Large, 296. 491 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 179. 492 Ibid, 178. 129 the object and content.493 Therefore, justification is a legal concept in which believers are legally righteous.
The Shorter Catechism defines sanctification as “the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”494 Just as justification and adoption are gifts of God’s grace enabling the believer to be seen as righteous and be brought into the family of God, sharing in the sonship of the eternal Son, sanctification is also a gift. As the believer is enabled more and more to die to sin and to live in the righteousness that Christ has won for him or her, the believer is prepared for the full and consummate enjoyment of the inheritance that is promised in his or her adoption.495
Bavinck writes that the righteousness that is legally imputed must become “ethically effective” in sanctification.496 Bavinck continues in saying that for Christ’s sake believers are holy and, therefore, they are commanded to become holy.497 God is both righteous and holy, as such in order for the believer to be saved he or she must be found to be both righteous and holy.498 Both are appropriated in Christ for salvation, however, in active sanctification, the renewing activity of the Holy Spirit gradually makes the righteousness of Christ one’s “personal ethical possession.”499 It can be seen, therefore, that sanctification is of a moral ethical nature.
493 Ibid, 211. 494 Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland, The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; with the Scripture Proofs at Large, 297. 495 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 34. 496 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 178. 497 Ibid, 230. 498 Ibid, 249. 499 Ibid. 130
Those who have believed have been taken out of their former state as children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and have been put into a new relationship with God. In being seen as righteous through Christ, the believer is taken to the end of the road that Adam had to walk and is adopted as a child of God.500 He or she is now in a new relationship with God and has all of the rights and duties of being a part of this family. Bavinck writes that those who have been pronounced free from the guilt and punishment that should be theirs due to sin are simultaneously adopted as children.501 He continues in saying that they are now objects of God’s fatherly love and are in the same position as Christ in that they share in His sonship.502 Christ is the eternal Son and through the adoption of believers He is the firstborn among many (Rom. 8:29).
Having been freed from slavery to sin and being reconciled to God the believer is joined to God’s family. Sonship is found to be in Christ and through adoption sonship is applied to the believer. Being brought into sonship through adoption shows a change in the relationship between God and those that are now called His children.503 David Wright notes that for Augustine love is the animating center of the Christian’s life as he or she moves towards God and eternity.504 Great love has been shown by the Father in that He chose not only to justify believers so that they were no longer seen as sinful but in His great love He also chose them as His children. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says
500 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 395. 501 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 227. 502 Ibid. 503 Ibid, 228. 504 David F. Wright, “Justification in Augustine,” in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 69. 131 that adoption is “an act of God’s free grace, whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.”505
By the grace of God, the believer is brought into the family of God, able to call Him
Father (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:4-7). Bavinck writes that while the name “God” is more general and signifies His transcendent dignity it is the name “Father” that is a personal and proper name, much like that of Yahweh, a name that shows an attribute of who God is and what He is like.506 The revelation of His name is a revelation, not only of what God is like but also a revelation of the believer’s new relationship with Him.507 All believers are made heirs of God through faith in Christ; nationality, social position, and gender do not bar anyone from reconciliation with God because everyone is one in Christ and has the promise of inheritance as a child of God (Gal. 3:24-29).
It is through Christ that all have access to the Father through the Spirit who has been gifted to all, the Spirit of adoption.508 Therefore, there are none who have been adopted that are seen as a stranger or a foreigner, none who are not known or trusted. Rather, all believers are fellow citizens of the kingdom of God and members of the household of
Him who has adopted many to be His children (Eph. 2:18-19). God has taken those that used to dwell in darkness and sin, He has justified them and adopted them, bringing them into His kingdom, that they may have the inheritance of those who are in the light, all through His Son in whom they have redemption and forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:12-14).
Freed from sin the believer also enters into the family of God and his or her relationship
505 Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland, The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; with the Scripture Proofs at Large, 297. 506 Bavinck, God and Creation, 307. 507 Ibid. 508 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 594. 132 with God becomes one of a child with his or her Father. The responsibilities, duties, and privileges of belonging to the family of God are now his or hers.509
Bavinck writes that the children of God serve the Father not as hired employees in hope of some compensation for their work but rather as children who do the will of the
Father out of love and gratitude by being faithful in the calling that has been entrusted to them.510 It is living out life in complete love and dedication to God the Father who has adopted His children in love that marks the believer. He or she has been justified, Christ’s righteousness is now called the believer’s own, and in addition, he or she has been adopted and has received Christ’s holiness.511 It is now a part of his or her responsibility and duty as a child of God to continue to grow in relationship with the Father and be continually sanctified, to be made in the image of the Older Brother, dedicated in obedience to the Father.
When speaking in regards to the Puritan John Owen, Beeke writes that adoption makes sanctification possible.512 Ferguson adds to this concept when he writes that the process of sanctification could be described as a reproduction of family-likeness in the people of God, they are transformed more and more to be like the Elder Brother who is an express likeness of the Father.513 This is not to say that all uniqueness is stripped from
509 Michael Braeutigam, “Adopted by the Triune God: the Doctrine of Adoption from a Trinitarian Perspective,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 27, no. 2 (September 2009): 113-115; Burger, Being in Christ, 253; Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 93-101; Burke, “Pauline Adoption,” 124. 510 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 721. 511 Ibid, 232-237. 512 Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance, 180. 513 Ferguson, “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship,” 86. 133 the believer, rather the beauty and uniqueness is exemplified in the manner that it shows the likeness of the Father.
Those that have been adopted and justified are to be conformed to the image of the
Son (Rom. 8:29-30). Those that are in Christ, those that have been justified, adopted, and have received sanctification, are new creations in Him. Paul writes that the believer has been reconciled to the Father in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-19). In this reconciliation, the believer is taken as a child of God and can grow in his or her relationship not just with the Father but also with the brothers and sisters that he or she now has. The believer is to take off the old self and put on the new self (Eph. 4:22-24).
Bavinck established that justification, adoption, and sanctification are united in union with Christ.514 It is through Him that the believer is seen as righteous.515 It is in Him that the believer is able to share in His sonship and is seen to be a child of God,516 waiting in hope for the completion of his or her adoption and the inheritance that accompanies adoption into sonship. It is in Him that the believer who has been justified and adopted is seen as holy, for Christ has won holiness for the believer.517 However, the journey of growth has just begun. Though Christ has brought the believer to the end of the road that
Adam had to walk and has made it possible for the believer to share in His sonship,518 he or she is to work out the salvation that has been gifted to him or her (Phil. 2:12).
514 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 227, 253-56. 515 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 506-507. 516 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 186. 517 Ibid, 248-252. 518 Bavinck, God and Creation, 565. 134
The believer has become identified with Christ (Rom. 6:5) and if he or she is in Him then truly he or she is a new creation, reconciled to God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17-19). For
Calvin the images of union, adoption, engrafting, and participation help to describe the imputation of what Christ has won to those who have done nothing to deserve His grace;519 it is in this imagery that the two notions of grace, justification and sanctification, can be brought together. It is in Christ that redemption and forgiveness of sin is possible
(Col. 1:12-14).
Just as the concept of union with Christ and finding salvation in Him is important for holding the doctrines together, so too is the understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role in the believer’s life. Though the doctrines in consideration are distinct, they are held together in that they are enjoyed in Christ and applied by the Spirit.520 He is the same Spirit who is the Spirit of adoption, the One who confirms that the believer is a child of God, an heir of
God and a fellow heir with Christ (Rom. 8:14-17). It is the testimony of the Holy Spirit that assures the believer that he or she is truly the child of God. Not only seen as righteous through Christ but also sharing in His sonship.
It is in the Spirit that the believer discovers his or her identity as the heir of God and together with Christ the believer is able to call on God as Father (Rom. 8:14-17). Burger writes that it is in the Spirit that the believer can share in the glory of God’s presence, and have his or her life be conformed to the Elder Brother’s cross and glorification.521 Not only does the Spirit assure the believer of his or her condition in Christ but He is the same
Spirit for all, joining all believers together in one family, giving to each as they need for
519 Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift, 19, 106-107, 108. 520 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 505-506. 521 Burger, Being in Christ, 499. 135 the building up of the body (1 Cor. 12:4-7). Joining the family together, the Spirit brings those who were of divergent backgrounds into the same family, though all had been slaves to sin and death now all are heirs of God (Gal. 3:24-29, 4:4-7). In the believer’s weakness, the Spirit also helps him or her and groans in intercession when the believer knows not what he or she should pray for (Rom. 8:26).
Many pictures can be found in the scriptures to help to illumine and complete one’s understanding of salvation. Bavinck reminds his readers that while one can find in the
New Testament different appraisals of the persona and work of Christ, these are not to challenge and undermine each other but to help supplement each other and enrich the believer’s knowledge.522 Adoption could be used as an imagery for salvation as a whole.523 This allows the believer to rejoice and act in obedience to the Father’s will as he or she lives out his or her new life as a child of God waiting for the completion of the adoption and the fulfillment of his or her inheritance. It can also be said, however, that adoption plays a very specific role in the order of salvation.524 Though there is not a temporal difference between justification, adoption, and what Bavinck termed as passive sanctification, an understanding of adoption can help to strengthen one’s understanding of a logical order of salvation.
It was seen that for Bavinck adoption played an important role in his understanding of salvation.525 However, it remained as almost an undertone in his writings, influencing many aspects but not being expounded on significantly itself. The influence of adoption
522 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 384. 523 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 18-19. 524 Ibid, 28-33. 525 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 226. 136 was seen in relation to the connection between justification and sanctification.526 In an effort to draw out the concept that Bavinck alluded to it was determined that justification is a legal change, the believer is attributed Christ’s righteousness.527 In a like manner adoption is also a legal change, it is a change in legal family rights.528
Sanctification was not determined to be a legal matter but rather an ethical process in which Christ is applied to the believer.529 Similarly, adoption has ethical considerations.
After the act of adoption, the believer enters into a new relational state with God. This state is marked by the privileges and responsibilities that are included in the state of sonship.530 The familial relationship with God that is now enjoyed by the adopted child of
God has implications for the Christian life.
Adoption, both as a legal act and the subsequent new state, joins together the legal nature of justification and the moral nature of sanctification. The new relationship given in adoption provides the ground for appropriating ethically what is the believer’s legally.
By explaining adoption’s connection to justification and sanctification in this way one not only grasps what Bavinck was alluding to when he exclaimed, “Become what you are!”,531 it also continues with Bavinck’s desire to avoid both nomism and antinomianism.
526 Ibid, 255. 527 Ibid, 200. 528 Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons, 86-87. 529 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 249. 530 Braeutigam, “Adopted by the Triune God,” 113-115; Burger, Being in Christ, 253; Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 93-101; Burke, “Pauline Adoption,” 124. 531 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 255. 137
Nomism is avoided due to justification remaining grounded in the work of Christ, the work done by believers is not for the acquisition of salvation.532 Antinomianism is avoided in understanding the importance of the responsibilities of sonship. Good works are not done in order to gain salvation but as obedience to the Father.533 When one is adopted one wants to please the Father and to be made more in Christ’s image. Believers are in the process of becoming who they already are legally, children of God, as such they are to act in accordance with who they are legally and this requires action.534 United in union in Christ,535 adoption is the bridge that connects justification and sanctification through a familial relationship with God.
In salvation, Bavinck understands Christ to redeem His people from sin, His benefits are threefold: restoration of right relation to God and all creatures; renewal after God’s image; and preservation for the heavenly inheritance, and in a future time, freedom from suffering and death, and eternal blessedness.536 The manner in which he describes these three can be equally applied to justification, adoption, and sanctification. “These benefits, though distinct, are not separate. Like faith, hope, and love, they form a threefold cord that cannot be broken.”537
532 Ibid, 204-209. 533 Ibid, 237, 721. 534 Ibid, 249-251, 255-256. 535 Ibid, 248-250. 536 Bavinck, Sin and Salvation in Christ, 594. 537 Ibid, 595. 138
Conclusion
This study has considered who Herman Bavinck was, and explored his theological understanding of justification, adoption, and sanctification. It was determined that
Bavinck was a man of active faith. He worked not only in academic theology but he also worked to bring about the joining of the Afscheiding and the Doleantie to make the
Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. He worked alongside Abraham Kuyper in establishing a vibrant Dutch neo-Calvinism.
Bavinck was a man between two worlds, he sought to bring together the pietism that had marked his early years with the modernism that was influencing the world prior to
World War One. Bavinck endeavored to bring together what was good and true about both these concepts. He was a man of wide knowledge as was seen in the variety that marked his writings, theology, ethics, pedagogy, and philosophy.
The focus of this work was Bavinck’s conceptions of justification and sanctification.
It was noted in chapter two that Bavinck argued for an understanding of justification that marked it as the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls. For him justification centred on union with Christ, it was the imputation of the righteousness of the Son of
God to those whose faith has Christ as its object and content. Justification is forensic, believers are legally seen as righteous, and they have been acquitted of the guilt and punishment of sin.
Sanctification, for Bavinck, is also found in union with Christ. Bavinck understood sanctification in two ways, passive and active. In passive sanctification, Christ is the
139 believers’ holiness, in this way salvation is complete. In active sanctification, believers ethically apply what has been given to them legally through justification. In this way, sanctification is understood to be a progressive ethical concept that occurs over the whole of believers’ lives. Both justification and sanctification are marked by Trinitarian understanding. It is from God, in Christ, and through the power and work of the Holy
Spirit.
Chapter three marked an effort to determine what a doctrine of adoption is within a
Reformed understanding. It was concluded that adoption is a Pauline concept that has its background both in the Greco-Roman socio-cultural culture of Paul’s time as well as the redemptive-historical tradition from the Old Testament. In the first case, adoption is understood to be a legal concept in which a person is removed from the power of their original family and is placed within a new family. In the latter case, adoption in Paul’s work is understood to be influenced by the redemptive concept of God choosing Israel for
His own.
In an effort to understand adoption theologically it was determined that Christ is declared to be the eternal Son of God and believers are the adopted sons of God.
Believers are ‘sons’ in the sense that all believers, no matter gender, race, or socio- economic status, are all recipients of the full inheritance made available to them through their adoption. For this work adoption was determined to be distinct from justification, though not separated from it, in that it is a logically distinct element of the salvation that is found in Christ. It was also determined that while the picture of adoption could be used to describe the whole of salvation it plays a significant role as a part of the ordo salutis.
140
In the final chapter, Bavinck’s understanding of the connection between justification, adoption, and sanctification was examined. It was determined that Bavinck did not greatly expand upon his conception of adoption within the Reformed Dogmatics.
However, it was established that he understood adoption, particularly the concept of sonship, to be a vital aspect of salvation. However, he appeared to see it closely tied to justification, if not completely within that doctrine.
A potential problem was discovered regarding Bavinck’s outworking of justification and sanctification. Despite his active life of faith and the emphasis within his work concerning being active in faith, Bavinck’s focus in concern with sanctification was the passive nature of the doctrine. Though there was an apparent ethical concept of sanctification Bavinck did bring in a legal notion through passive sanctification. No doubt he strove to avoid nomism, however, there appeared to be a cost paid in regards to the active participation of believers. Therefore, two gaps were noted.
First, Bavinck’s emphasis on an active Christian life was exemplified within his life but not in his theology to the same extent. Second, there is a gap between the legal and moral aspects of justification and sanctification. What brings the believer to live out their legal status – what is the motivation? Additionally, Bavinck alluded to the concept that justification and sanctification are linked in adoption. The question became apparent, if
Bavinck had expounded upon adoption would he have been able to communicate an active sanctification that did not downplay the work of Christ nor its connection to justification?
In an effort to expound upon the concept found within Bavinck’s work, the question of how adoption connected the legal nature of justification to the ethical nature of
141 sanctification needed to be answered. It was argued that adoption, both in its legal nature and in the ethical nature of sonship that it results in, does connect justification and sanctification. Adoption is the grounds, through a new familial relationship, for the ethical appropriation of what was given legally in justification. The motive for obedience comes from a love for the Father. The believer takes on the responsibilities of sonship
(obedience to the will of God) and rejoices in its privileges. By using adoption to bridge the gap between the legal and moral aspects of justification and sanctification the gap between Bavinck’s theology and life can also be bridged.
For the remaining sections of this conclusion, a practical application of the theological understanding of adoption will be considered. Additionally, three main questions will be considered for further study. Could adoption, as a theological concept, be a model for the Christian church and family in regards to orphan care and family building? What is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and adoption? Could adoption be used in some way to open dialogue with Feminist theology? After these questions have been considered some final remarks will be given.
A Practical Application
Despite all of this thought and theological care, it is all for nothing if it does not impact the believer’s life and is not apparent in the way that one lives in relation to God and to others. This is one of the reasons for choosing Bavinck as the primary theologian.
He was a man of the scriptures, a man of integrity, and a man who believed in living out the Christian life in the world. This final attribute is no doubt closely tied to his strong
142 neo-Calvinistic leanings. However, the pietistic influences in his life no doubt also played an important role.
In his desire for an outworking of Christian life, Bavinck wanted dogmatics to inspire a lived out Christian life. In following Bavinck’s legacy one must endeavour to understand the practical implications of this study. There is no point in theological study if it has no bearing on the spiritual life of the believer and to his or her interactions with others. The Christian faith must be a practical faith.
In addition to the practical dimensions of horizontal adoption and orphan care, the understanding of spiritual adoption is also important for other areas of the church and church life. George Liacopulos, an Orthodox Christian, examples this in his focus on how adoption in Christ needs to be renewed as a “pillar of missiological tradition.”538 He also stresses the need to emphasize the necessity of being adopted in Christ for spiritual and emotional wholeness and fulfillment to develop.539 What Liacopulos is saying is that the understanding of spiritual adoption should not only strengthen the relationship that the believer has with God but it should also play an important role in how one relates to others – both within the body of Christ and those who are yet to be adopted as sons and daughters of God. As was discussed within this thesis it is seen that an understanding of adoption can assist in negating a legalistic concept of trying to please God through actions and opening up the concept of obeying a caring Father out of love for Him as the adoptive Father.
538 George P. Liacopulos, “Receiving and Professing the Spirit of Adoption in Christ in the Contemporary Age,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, no. 3-4 (September 1997): 423. 539 Ibid. 143
If each believer is a child of God then, therefore, the church is the Family of God. It follows that adoption not only results in a specific familial relationship with the God but also with other believers. Wayne Grudem understands adoption as having two main privileges, how God relates to believers, and how believers relate to one another.540 He writes that adoption into God’s family makes every believer a partaker of a single family.541 This impacts believers’ relationships with one another, now they are marked by a filial relationship in which they are brothers and sisters.
By being a member of the family of God one now finds his or her identity and relationship with others tied up in the understanding of family. The believer now has a new aspect of his or her identity. He or she has been justified, cleansed of guilt and sin, and now has a new family. The old identity can be shaken off, the identity that he or she had been held in while he or she was in sin, and a new identity put on. Jeanne Stevenson-
Moessner writes that by taking on the name of Christian the believer is intentionally identifying with the one who is now Father,542 therefore they are also identifying with the family.
It is through faith in the gospel that the believer receives the promise of adoption,543 a changed life now takes hold of the believer as he or she now relates to God in a familial sense. Peterson writes that as the believer grows in Christ he or she begins to also show the family resemblance as regeneration through the new unity and relationship that is
540 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 739. 541 Ibid, 737. 542 Jeanne Stevenson-Moessner, “One Family, under God, Indivisible,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 13, no. 2 (2003): 62. 543 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 90. 144 now enjoyed.544 The aspect of active sanctification is, therefore, intricately linked to the believer’s adoption.545 Active sanctification not only has to do with the inner spiritual life of the believer as they relate to the Father, adopted and dearly loved, freed from sin and seen as righteous in Christ, it also has to do with the relationships between believers. As mentioned above, the church is the family of God. It is His kingdom and all His children are citizens of this kingdom.
Through an understanding of adoption and being placed within the family of God, a greater understanding of the relationship between members of a church should arise.546
An understanding that God has welcomed the others of one’s congregation into His family should fill the believer with joy. Just as members of biological families may go through hard times and there may be dislike on many sides, a healthy family is known to have a love for one another that overcomes the difficulties. Due to the human aspect of the church, there will still be difficulties but the knowledge that God has built His family should bring resolve to engage positively with all members of the family.
The Father has seen to the justification and sanctification of His children through His eternal Son.547 All believers share in the sonship of Christ and in the inheritance of eternal life.548 How often does one think about the beauty of other Christians, despite different backgrounds and circumstances, as being one’s brothers and sisters? They are
544 Robert A. Peterson, “Toward a Systematic Theology of Adoption,” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 27, no. 2 (2001): 125. 545 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 249-251, 255. 546 Stephen Edmondson, “Opening the Table: The Body of Christ and God's Prodigal Grace,” Anglican Theological Review 91, no. 2 (2009). 547 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 251. 548 Ibid, 226. 145 joined together in a diverse and wonderful family, a family that has been adopted and loved.
Throughout this study, the focus has been on how one has been justified, is seen as righteous, can now share in Christ’s sonship through adoption, and is seen as holy through the Elder Brother. This point should be seen as a point of reconciliation between congregations and denominations. As congregations and individuals work to live as the children of the Most High God devoting themselves to the Father and growing in relationship with the One who has saved and loved them they should understand other denominations and congregations to be their siblings in Christ.549
Understanding how Gentiles were able to be brought into the promises of the Father in Christ can be of great use in this regard. Pamela Eisenbaum writes that Christ’s death was the ultimate sacrifice that brings the Gentiles into the family of God.550 In her understanding of Paul, she sees him as writing in regards to the need for Gentiles to be integrated into the Abrahamic patrilineage of which the Jews already belong.551 There is not, therefore, just reconciliation between humanity and God but there is also reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. Eisenbaum believes that the way in which patrilineal integration and divine redemption can be facilitated is through the sacrificial
549 Bavinck writes that there are local manifestations of “the one mystical body of Christ.” He continues by saying that they are spiritually one and these local manifestations are “obligated by the Lord to maintain fellowship with all who share the same faith.” Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 374. 550 Pamela Eisenbaum, “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans,” in Gender, Tradition, and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders, ed. Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte, Romans through History and Cultures, (New York: T&T Clark, 2005). 551 Ibid, 119. 146 rite of blood purification.552 For this reason, Jesus’ death is of vital importance to salvation and to the adoption of believers. Eisenbaum continues by stating that Gentiles can possess adoption through Christ which the Jews received in part at the Exodus.553
Whether one agrees or not with Eisenbaum’s interpretation of Paul it is apparent how the joining together of diverse groups into one family can be of importance to the believer. It is through adoption that the right of sonship is gifted to the believer.554 What
Christ has done for His people is of such great importance that it does not just affect the life of the individual. It is not just to one’s relationship to God that is impacted but also one's relationship with all of humanity.555 In Christ, the believer is seen as righteous, no longer seen as the sinful stained creature. Rather than choosing to leave those who believe as justified and holy, able to enter into the Kingdom, God chose to bring His people into intimate relationship with Him. Salvation does not leave believers in a solely theocratic relationship with God as ruler over His people. He chose to bring them into an intimate relationship where He has adopted them, bringing them into a familial relationship with all of the duties and privileges that that entails.556 The privilege of inheritance and also the duty of living as children of the Most High God.
It is seen, therefore, that the inheritance that is given to those that are found in Christ is not found to only be available to the Jewish people but to the Gentiles as well. Scott writes that it is through faith in Jesus Christ and participation with Him through the Spirit
552 Ibid. 553 Ibid, 122. 554 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, 226-227. 555 Ibid, 721-723. 556 Beeke, Heirs with Christ, 93-101. 147 that one becomes an heir according to the Abrahamic promise.557 The promise that had been given to Abraham had been fulfilled in his descendant, Jesus Christ, and through faith in Him this promise has been extended to those who believe and now cry ‘Abba,
Father’ with the Spirit.558
Katarina Westerlund is in agreement that adoption should be used as a theological resource for reflecting critically on how one relates to others.559 Because Christians have been adopted into the family of God, all who believe not only enter into a renewed and intimate relationship with God but they also enter into a new relationship with other believers. The impact of acknowledging that one has spiritual family members around the world should have a significant influence on how one relates to other Christians regardless of the differences. Perhaps a renewed understanding of spiritual adoption in relation to justification and sanctification will positively impact the relationship between denominations, where we see those with different traditional backgrounds as members of one family, adopted by one Father in love and grace. Others have received the benefits in
Christ just as we have.
Living a life informed by one’s justification, adoption, and sanctification, is not just a matter of understanding other believers as one’s family but a matter of relating to one’s brothers and sisters in Christ.560 Though there will be disagreements and hurts, other
Christians are one’s family and should be treated as such. Just as Bavinck sought to
557 Scott, Adoption as Sons of God, 249, 263. 558 Timothy George, Galatians, New American Commentary; v. 30, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 309. 559 Katarina Westerlund, “Adoption as Spiritual Praxis in Individualized Times,” Dialog 51, no. 4 (2012): 323. 560 Ibid, 327-28. 148 respect and understand other points of view so too should all believers. Agreement between parties does not have to be the end result but respect, care, kindness, and love should always be given. If one understood and acted in accordance to the understanding that the person with whom they disagreed is a member of their family and is seen as righteous, holy, and as His child by God perhaps disagreements would not be so effective in tearing the family of God apart.
Bavinck writes that believers are to act, he argues that they do not exist for anyone but God and that they have a threefold office.561 First, there is an obligation to join the church, Bavinck is firm in his assertion that as members of the body of Christ believers must not be in isolation but must seek and maintain fellowship.562 Second, within the church believers are called to a variety of activities, including but not limited to, use of their gifts, rejoicing and suffering, attending the gathering of believers, and proclaiming the Lord’s death.563 Third, believers are obligated, in their own way and extent, to “be active in the formation and reformation of the church.”564 It can be seen, therefore, that
Christianity is not to be a stagnant faith. The motivation behind this action is not due to crippling fear or hope of some compensation but love and gratitude for the Father.565 This action, however, must not be limited to interaction only within one’s individual congregation. The believer must not forget the familial bonds that tie all believers together.
561 Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, New Creation, 376. 562 Ibid. 563 Ibid. 564 Ibid. 565 Ibid, 721. 149
Relating to one another as members of the same family despite disagreements would help to show harmony and unity to those who are not yet within the family. There is no one who wants to belong to a family or even an organization that is marked by fighting and contention. Speaking on behalf of others who are a part of the tail-end of the millennial generation, it is not a desire for no disagreements and a fake sense of agreement and cordiality that is sought after. It is an open environment where one can be accepted as unique and individual, where one can be encouraged in times of struggle and hardship as well as times of success. It is an environment that facilitates growth and love.
In other words, we are looking for a family. For a healthy family that supports, encourages, loves, and stands up for others. Under no circumstances do we want a place that ridicules, looks down on, judges, and harms others through words and actions.566
Possibilities for Further Study
Throughout the duration of this study, many possibilities for questions and further areas of study have arisen. Further study could also be done in the area of how adoption relates to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Could they be seen as family ceremonies? Connections between adoption and other doctrines could also be considered.
The concept of the connection between regeneration and adoption would be of interest as would the connection between adoption and eschatology.
566 For insights into the relation between Millennials and the nature of church see: Jaco J. Hamman, “The Millennial Generation and the Church: Doing it Differently,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 25, no. 3 (November 2015); Richard D. Waters and Denise Sevick Bortree, “‘Can We Talk About the Direction of This Church?’: The Impact of Responsiveness and Conflict on Millennials’ Relationship With Religious Institutions,” Journal of Media and Religion 11, no. 4 (2012). 150
In addition to the questions briefly mentioned, three additional questions have arisen that could provide for some interesting studies. The first of these deals with the influence of understanding vertical adoption on horizontal adoption. Could adoption, as a theological concept, be a model for the Christian church and family in regards to orphan care and family building?567 Would a firm understanding of being adopted and a member of the family of God cause the believer to be more open to adopting or being a part of an adoption community? Ethical considerations must be dealt with. If a believer was to be encouraged by his or her adoption by the Heavenly Father and desired to adopt would this be an ethical approach to growing a family and caring for someone else?
Considerations would need to be given in regards to care given, matters of identity confusion, and economic issues. Ecological issues could also be considered, such as the possibility of earth overpopulation.
Secondly, further study should be done regarding the relationship between the Holy
Spirit and adoption. It was established in this study that the work of the Holy Spirit is important not only in connecting justification, adoption, and sanctification together but
His work is also important in studying adoption. Studying the Spirit’s role as the Spirit of adoption could be of great interest. Anthony Thiselton writes that for Paul, the Spirit is a gift of grace to both the individual Christian and to the community of Christians.568 This
567 For examples of how a theological understanding of adoption can impact the practical outworking of horizontal adoption see: Dan, Cruver, ed., Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living through the Rediscovery of Abba Father, (Adelphi, Maryland: Cruciform Press, 2011); Krish Kandiah, and Miriam Kandiah, Home for Good: Making a Difference for Vulnerable Children, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014); Jeanne Stevenson-Moessner, The Spirit of Adoption: At Home in God's Family, (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003). 568 Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 71. 151 being considered, studying the Spirit as the Spirit of adoption could help in understanding the Kingdom of God in a familial sense.
Thiselton adds that Paul’s pneumatology is eschatological and Christological.569 It was seen in this study that union with Christ was highly important. It has been noted by
Mehrdad Fatehi that the relationship between the Spirit and God in Paul’s writings is in line with the Jewish tradition. Fatehi writes that the Spirit is portrayed as standing for
God in His presence and action among and upon His people in both individual and corporate means.570 It is in this regard that Paul’s pneumatology becomes highly
Christological. Through the work of the Spirit that one experiences union with the risen
Christ. Additionally, it had been noted that Bavinck may have neglected to bring much of an eschatological element into his discussion on justification and sanctification. In studying the Holy Spirit and adoption a connection may be more clearly seen.
Finally, how would adoption help to bring some connection to Feminist theology? In studying Bavinck it is apparent that he sought to study opposing thoughts and understand them. He sought to find truth within the opposing views and while he would not compromise his beliefs he always took the beliefs of others seriously. He was also a man of mediation, he sought to reconcile people, and he wanted to see the church together.
Could his legacy inspire different groups to seek to understand each other, find common elements, and seek the truth in the other’s understanding? Though differences will remain
569 Ibid, 70, 73. 570 Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2, Reihe; 128, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 201. 152 perhaps there can be harmony between the groups. Or at the very least a point in which dialogue can be made.
Rosemary Ruether conceptualizes redemption as being about the transformation of self and society.571 She takes a radically different turn in the understanding of salvation than Bavinck. For her, salvation is not a focus of justification,572 nor is the redemption that salvation brings primarily about being reconciled with God.573 Ruether pushes back against the thought and desire to “reject” one’s body and finitude and enter into communion with the spiritual after physical death.574 She also dismisses the individualizing and spiritualizing aspects of salvation.575 Additionally, Reuther rejects views of the eschaton that view it as a final and literal salvific “endpoint.”576 She also rejects Christ as being the unique incarnation of God who atoned for sin on the cross and as such, there is also a rejection of Christ’s historical bodily resurrection.577 Finally, there is a dismissal of the idea that salvation can only be finally understood by one tradition.578
For Ruether, there are basic dualities such as mind and body, self and world, individual and society, and nature and spirit. She believes that these dualities offer a false
571 Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Gender and Redemption in Christian Theological History,” Feminist Theology 21, (May 1999): 105. 572 Wanda W. Berry, “Images of Sin and Salvation in Feminist Theology,” Anglican Theological Review 60, no. 1 (January 1978): 41. 573 Ruether, “Gender and Redemption in Christian Theological History,” 105. 574 Ibid. 575 Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983), 215. 576 Nicholas John Ansell, “The Woman Will Overcome the Warrior”: A Dialogue with the Christian/feminist Theology of Rosemary Radford Ruether, (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994), 40. 577 Ibid, 139, 206. 578 Rosemary Radford Ruether, To Change the World: Christology and Cultural Criticism, (New York: Crossroad, 1981), 39. 153 alternative to a lost unity and that it is through salvation that a wholeness or unification of the dualities can be achieved.579 In this way, Ruether sees redemption as being about
“reclaiming an original goodness that is still available as our true selves, although obscured by false ideologies and social structures that have justified domination of some and subordination of others.”580 Salvation is, therefore, a conversion to a new humanity and as such this cannot be done in isolation.581 There is a re-creation of humanity, for both men and women, in which there is a re-creation of relationships.
Ruether sees redemption as communal in which there is a re-birth to an authentic understanding of self that is in conjunction with a community that assembles within this collective rediscovery of a new humanity.582 She believes that in liberating salvation there arises an authentic harmony with all that is incarnate in one’s social and historical being.583 This shows a return to the understanding of salvation as being unification, or liberation unto wholeness.
Without a doubt, there is much that differs between scholars such as Ruether and
Bavinck. There will never be agreement on everything but perhaps some concept of adoption could be seen as a conversation starting point. While adoption may be seen in scripture as a masculinising aspect as Paul uses the language of “sons” the concept of bringing together humanity in new life, new identity, and unity in a single family may be one of agreement. For feminist theologian Mary Ann Fatula, the adoption of believers is important because of the relationship that it entails not only with God but also with
579 Berry, “Images of Sin and Salvation in Feminist Theology,” 28. 580 Ruether, “Gender and Redemption in Christian Theological History,” 105. 581 Ruether, Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, 193. 582 Ibid. 583 Ibid, 216. 154 fellow believers. She tells of how as sons and daughters of the Father, believers are filled with the Holy Spirit and in being filled with the Spirit they are formed into a community of people. A community that is living in the communion of the Holy Spirit with the
Trinity.584
Final Remarks
The aim of this study was to determine if adoption connects the legal nature of justification and the moral nature of sanctification. Additionally, it was noted that
Bavinck emphasized passive sanctification in order to highlight the work of Christ. It was determined that an understanding of adoption would help to highlight the active role that believers play but would not negate the work of Christ.
While looking at Bavinck’s concepts of justification and sanctification it became apparent that adoption was an important aspect. He saw adoption into the family of God as being a significant part of the believer’s life. Adoption was, for him, intricately linked to justification, just as sanctification was, though there were times in which it falls under justification. The work of the Spirit connected them together in union with Christ. The believer is adopted into the family of God and then in obedience to the Father, he or she devotes his or her life to the will of the Father in childlike obedience and faith. The believer becomes more and more what he or she is seen as in Christ, righteous and holy, the beloved child of God.
584 Mary Ann Fatula, “Holy Spirit,” in Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, ed. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 383. 155
Bavinck alluded to a connection between justification and sanctification found in adoption, this was expounded upon in this thesis. Despite his apparent understanding of the importance of adoption, he did not spend dedicated time on the understanding of the doctrine itself. No doubt adoption as entrance into the family of God was important for
Bavinck. Using Bavinck’s thought as a base, therefore, brought the study to the conclusion that while adoption could be understood as a picture of the whole of salvation it is also vital for the understanding of the salvation of the individual and his or her relation with other believers.
It could be said that Bavinck understood that after the fall humanity had no way of returning to a positive relationship with God on their own. Working out a plan of salvation, God chose the Israelite people as His own. Moving into the New Testament
God reveals Himself more fully through the incarnate and eternal Son. Through His life, death, and resurrection Christ wins for believers righteousness and holiness, He brings them to the end of the road that Adam had to walk, a road that humanity could not achieve on their own. Rather than just leaving those that have been found in Christ as justified from their sins and relating to God as the theocratic head of His kingdom God allowed believers to enter into a much more intimate relationship with Him. He adopted them and gave them the duties and privileges of being the children of God.
Believers are able to share in the sonship of Christ. In this new and intimate relationship, believers can grow in their relationship with the Father knowing that they have been justified by the Son. Adoption not only illumines justification and allows one to look at it with wonder, for God so loved the world that while humanity was enslaved to sin and were the children of wrath He worked out their justification. Adoption also
156 signifies the new relationship that believers have with the Father and with other believers.
It is in this relationship that believers can grow and live out their dedication to the Father as His beloved children. For Bavinck, the righteousness that has been legally imputed to the believer must become his or hers ethically through sanctification. The believer’s life is informed in the legal and ethical reality of being adopted as God’s child. Adoption gives the basis to apply ethically what has been attributed legally to the believer through union with Christ. In this way, justification, adoption, and sanctification come together in beautiful harmony.
157
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” ~Romans 8:14-15 (ESV)
158
Bibliography
“Herman Bavinck Bibliography.” The Bavinck Institute. Accessed February 07, 2018. https://bavinckinstitute.org/resources/herman-bavinck-bibliography/. Ambrose, “The Holy Spirit.” In Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, edited by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 90. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Ansell, Nicholas John. “The Woman Will Overcome the Warrior”: A Dialogue with the Christian/feminist Theology of Rosemary Radford Ruether. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994. Aquinas, St. Thomas. The One Mediator (3a. 16-26). Edited by Colman E. O'Neill. Vol. 50. Summa Theologiæ: Latin Text and English Translation, Introductions, Notes, Appendices and Glossaries. New York: Blackfriars with McGraw-Hill, 1965. Athanasius, “Defense against the Arians.” In Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, edited by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 50-51. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Baker Publishing Group. “Reformed Ethics, Volume 1.” Reformed Ethics, Volume 1 | Baker Publishing Group. Accessed February 07, 2018. http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/reformed-ethics-volume-1/380940. Bavinck, Herman. “Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 19, (2008): 127-142. –––––. “Recent Dogmatic Thought in the Netherlands.” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 3, no. 10 (1892): 209-29. 2006. Accessed October 3, 2017. http://scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets.aspx?src=BR1892310&div=1&img=20. –––––. “The Future of Calvinism.” The Presbyterian and Reformed Review 5, no. 17 (1894): 1-24. 2006. Accessed October 3, 2017. http://scdc.library.ptsem.edu/mets/mets.aspx?src=BR1894517&div=1&img=24. –––––. “Calvin and Common Grace.” In Calvin and the Reformation: Four Studies, by Herman Bavinck, E. Doumergue, and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. Edited by August Lang and William Park Armstrong. 99-130. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1909. –––––. “Death.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr. Eerdmans, 1939. –––––. “General Biblical Principles and the Relevance of Concrete Mosaic Law for the Social Question Today (1891),” Journal of Markets & Morality 13, no. 2 (2010): 437–46. –––––. “Herman Bavinck’s ‘Common Grace.’” Translated by R. C. Van Leeuwen. Calvin Theological Journal 24, no. 1 (1989): 35–65.
159
–––––. “John Calvin: A Lecture on the Occasion of his 400th Birthday, July 10, 1509— 1909.” Translated by John Bolt. The Bavinck Review 1 (2010): 57-85. –––––. “The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church.” Translated by John Bolt. Calvin Theological Journal 27, no. 2 (1992): 220–51. –––––. “The Fall.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr. Eerdmans, 1939. –––––. “The Influence of the Protestant Reformation on the Moral and Religious Condition of Communities and Nations.” In Alliance of the Reformed Churches Holding the Presbyterian System: Proceedings of the Fifth General Council, Toronto, 1892, 48–55. London: Publication Committee of the Presbyterian Church of England, 1892. –––––. “The Problem of War.” Translated by Stephen Voorwinde. The Banner of Truth, 1977. –––––. Biblical and Religious Psychology. Translated by H. Hanko. Grand Rapids: Protestant Reformed Theological School, 1974. –––––. Created, Fallen, and Converted Humanity. Edited by John Bolt. Vol. 1. Reformed Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018. –––––. Essays on Religion, Science, and Society. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by Harry Boonstra and Gerrit Sheeres. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. –––––. God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 2. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. –––––. Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 4. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. –––––. In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999. –––––. Mental, Religious and Social Forces in the Netherlands. A General View of the Netherlands 17. The Hague: Commercial Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce, 1915. –––––. Prolegomena. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 1. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. –––––. Saved by Grace: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration. Edited by J. Mark Beach. Translated by Nelson D. Kloosterman. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. –––––. Sin and Salvation in Christ. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 3. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. –––––. The Certainty of Faith. St. Catherines, Ontario: Paideia Press, 1980. –––––. The Christian Family. Edited by Stephen J. Grabill. Translated by Nelson D. Kloosterman. Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2012.
160
–––––. The Philosophy of Revelation: The Stone Lectures for 1908-1909, Princeton Theological Seminary. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909. –––––. The Sacrifice of Praise: Meditations Before and After Receiving Access to the Table of the Lord. Translated by John Dolfin. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Louis Kregel, 1922. Beeke, Joel R. Heirs with Christ: The Puritans on Adoption. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. –––––. The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Berry, Wanda W. “Images of Sin and Salvation in Feminist Theology.” Anglican Theological Review 60, no. 1 (January 1978): 25-54. Billings, J. Todd. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ. Changing Paradigms in Historical and Systematic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Blom, J. C. H., and E. Lamberts, History of the Low Countries. New York: Berghahn Books, 1999. Bolt, John. “Christ and the Law in the Ethics of Herman Bavinck.” Calvin Theological Journal 28 (1993): 45–73. –––––. “The Bavinck Recipe for Theological Cake.” Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (2010): 11–17. –––––. A Theological Analysis of Herman Bavinck's Two Essays on the Imitatio Christi: Between Pietism and Modernism. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2013. –––––. Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, by Herman Bavinck. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Vol. 2. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Braeutigam, Michael. “Adopted by the Triune God: the Doctrine of Adoption from a Trinitarian Perspective.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 27, no. 2 (September 2009): 164-175. Bratt, James D. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Bristley, Eric D., and John Bolt. Guide to the Writings of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008. Burger, Hans. Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Burke, T. “Pauline Adoption: A Sociological Approach.” The Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 119–134. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
161
Clement of Alexandria, “Paedagogus.” In Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, edited by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 29. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Cruver, Dan, ed. Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living through the Rediscovery of Abba Father. Adelphi, Maryland: Cruciform Press, 2011. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 38a. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Edmondson, Stephen. “Opening the Table: The Body of Christ and God's Prodigal Grace.” Anglican Theological Review 91, no. 2 (2009): 213-234. Eglinton, James. “How Many Herman Bavincks? De Gemeene Genade and the ‘Two Bavincks’ Hypothesis.” In The Kuyper Center Review, Volume 2: Revelation and Common Grace, 279–301. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Eisenbaum, Pamela. “A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans.” In Gender, Tradition, and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders, edited by Cristina Grenholm and Daniel Patte, 101-36. Romans through History and Cultures. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Fatehi, Mehrdad. The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe; 128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Fatula, Mary Ann. “Holy Spirit.” In Holy Spirit and Salvation: The Sources of Christian Theology, edited by, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, 383. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Ferguson, Sinclair B. “The Reformed Doctrine of Sonship.” In Pulpit & People: Essays in Honour of William Still on his 75th Birthday, edited by Nigel M. De S. Cameron and Sinclair B. Ferguson, 81-88. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1986. –––––. Children of the Living God: Delighting in the Father’s Love. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2011. Fesko, J. V. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014. Fung, Ronald Y. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Gaffin, Richard B. “Justification and Union with Christ.” In Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. , by David W. A. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, 248-69. The Calvin 500 Series. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2008. Gaffin, Richard B. Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology. 2nd ed. Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub, 1987. Garner, David B. Sons in the Son: The Riches and Reach of Adoption in Christ. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2016. George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary; v. 30. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
162
Gerrish, B. A. Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Gleason, Randall C. “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40, no. 2 (June 1997): 241-256. Gleason, Ronald N. Herman Bavinck: Pastor, Churchman, Statesman, and Theologian. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2010. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Hamman, Jaco J. “The Millennial Generation and the Church: Doing it Differently.” Journal of Pastoral Theology 25, no. 3 (November 2015): 161-164. Heideman, Eugène Paul, Herman Bavinck, and Heinrich Emil Brunner. The Relation of Revelation and Reason in E. Brunner and H. Bavinck. Proefschrift, Etc. Van Gorcum & Co.; Dr. H.J. Prakke & H.M.G. Prakke: Assen, 1959. Heslam, Peter S., and Kuyper, Abraham. Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Carlisle: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1998. Hodge, Charles. Soteriology. Vol. 3. Systematic Theology. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2013. Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2001. Holy Bible: New International Version. Nashville: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2011. Houston, Thomas. The Adoption of Sons, Its Nature, Spirit, Privileges, and Effects: Practical and Experimental Treatise. Paisley Scot: Alex. Gardner, 1872. Kandiah, Krish, and Miriam Kandiah. Home for Good Making a Difference for Vulnerable Children. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014. Kearsley, R. “Adoptionism.” In New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic. Edited by Martin Davie, Tim Grass, Stephen R. Holmes, John McDowell, and T. A. Noble, 6. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016. Kelly, Douglas F. “Adoption: An Underdeveloped Heritage of the Westminster Standards.” The Reformed Theological Review 52, no. 3 (September 1993): 110- 120. –––––. “The True and Triune God: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.” In A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis, by David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, 65-89. The Calvin 500 Series. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2008. Kloosterman, Nelson D. “The Legacy of Herman Bavinck.” New Horizons. 2008. Accessed October 03, 2017. http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=577. Kuyper, Abraham, and Bratt, James D. Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: Carlisle: Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1998.
163
Liacopulos, George P. “Receiving and Professing the Spirit of Adoption in Christ in the Contemporary Age.” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 42, no. 3-4 (September 1997): 419-426. Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 42. Dallas: Word Books, 1990. Longenecker, Richard N. “The Metaphor of Adoption in Paul's Letters.” The Covenant Quarterly 72, no. 3-4 (August 2014): 71-78. Lyall, Francis. “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul: Adoption.” Journal of Biblical Literature 88, no. 4 (December 1969): 458-466. –––––. Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984. Mackay, James Hutton. Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911. McGowan, A. T. B. “Justification and the Ordo Salutis.” In Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Bruce L. McCormack, 147-63. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. McKim, Donald K. The Westminster Handbook to Reformed Theology. 1st ed. The Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Mueller, J. Theodore. “Adoption.” In Basic Christian Doctrines, edited by Carl F. H. Henry, 220-26. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. New Revised Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Bibles, 1993. Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Ortlund, Dane. “‘A Benefit No Mind Can Fully Comprehend’: Bavinck’s Doctrine of Justification.” Calvin Theological Journal 46 (2011): 249–267. –––––. “‘Created Over a Second Time’ or ‘Grace Restoring Nature’? Edwards and Bavinck on the Heart of Christian Salvation.” The Bavinck Review 3 (2012): 9– 29. –––––. “Sanctification by Justification: The Forgotten Insight of Bavinck and Berkouwer on Progressive Sanctification.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 28, no. 1 (2010): 43-61. Owen, John. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews with Preliminary Exercitations, Vol III. Edited by Rev. William H. Goold, and Rev. Charles W. Quick, Vol. XII. The Works of John Owen. Philadelphia: Leighton Publications, 1869. Packer, J. I. Knowing God. 20th anniversary ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.
164
Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. Part Four: Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era. Vol. 2. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Peppard, Michael. The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Peterson, Robert A. “Toward a Systematic Theology of Adoption.” Presbyterian: Covenant Seminary Review 27, no. 2 (2001): 120–131. –––––. Adopted by God: From Wayward Sinners to Cherished Children. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001. Praamsma, L. Let Christ Be King: Reflections on the Life and Times of Abraham Kuyper. Jordan Station, ON: Paideia Press, 1985. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard DeWitt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Rossell, William H. “New Testament adoption - Graeco-Roman or Semitic?” Journal of Biblical Literature 71, no. 4 (December 1952): 233-234. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. “Gender and Redemption in Christian Theological History.” Feminist Theology 21, (May 1999): 98-108. –––––. Sexism and God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1983. –––––. To Change the World: Christology and Cultural Criticism. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of [huiothesia (romanized Form)] in the Pauline Corpus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament. 2. Reihe., 48. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1992. Stevenson-Moessner, Jeanne. “One Family, under God, Indivisible.” Journal of Pastoral Theology 13, no. 2 (2003): 51–66. –––––. The Spirit of Adoption: At Home in God's Family. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Stibbe, Mark W. G. From Orphans to Heirs: Celebrating Our Spiritual Adoption. New ed. Oxford: Bible Reading Fellowship, 2005. Theological University Reformed Churches, “History.” Theological University Kampen. Accessed January 12, 2018. https://en.tukampen.nl/portal- informatiepagina/history. Thiselton, Anthony C. The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Thomas, Derek W. H. “The Mediator of the Covenant.” In Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: Essays and Analysis. , by David W. A. Hall and Peter A. Lillback, 205- 225. The Calvin 500 Series. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub, 2008.
165
Trumper, Tim J. R. “A Fresh Exposition of Adoption I: An Outline.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 23, no. 1 (2005): 60-80. –––––. “The Metaphorical Import of Adoption: A Plea for Realisation.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 14, no. 2 (1996): 129-145. –––––. “The Theological History of Adoption I: An Account.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 20, no. 1 (2002): 4-28. Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. Vol. 2. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1994. Van Keulen, Dirk. “Herman Bavinck's Reformed Ethics: Some Remarks about the Unpublished Manuscripts in the Libraries of Amsterdam and Kampen.” The Bavinck Review 1 (2010): 25-56. Vanderlaan, Eldred Cornelius. Protestant Modernism in Holland. London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1924. Venema, Cornelis P. “Herman Bavinck: His Life and Theology.” New Horizons. 2008. Accessed October 3, 2017. http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=576. Waters, Richard D., and Denise Sevick Bortree. “‘Can We Talk About the Direction of This Church?’: The Impact of Responsiveness and Conflict on Millennials’ Relationship with Religious Institutions.” Journal of Media and Religion 11, no. 4 (2012): 200-215. Webb, R. A. The Reformed Doctrine of Adoption. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947. Wesley, John. “A Plain Account of Christian Perfection as Believed and Taught by the Reverend Mr. John Wesley, from the year 1725, to the year 1777.” In The Works of John Wesley: Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, and Letters, 366-446. 3rd ed. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. –––––. “Brief Thoughts on Christian Perfection.” In The Works of John Wesley: Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, and Letters, 446. 3rd ed. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996. Westerlund, Katarina. “Adoption as Spiritual Praxis in Individualized Times.” Dialog 51, no. 4 (2012): 323-329. Westhead, N. “Adoption in the Thought of John Calvin.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 13, no. 2 (1995): 102–115. Westminster Assembly, and Church of Scotland. The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; with the Scripture Proofs at Large; Together with the Sum of Saving Knowledge (Contained in the Holy Scriptures, and Held Forth in the Said Confession and Catechisms), and Practical Use Thereof. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1973. Widdicombe, Peter. The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
166
Wright, David F. “Justification in Augustine.” In Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, edited by Bruce L. McCormack, 55-72. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
167