CTJ45 (2010): 32-43

Herman Bavinck and Benjamin B. Warfield on Apologetics and the

Autopistia of Scripture Henk van den Belt

In several recent studies on the position of Reformed theology in the modern context of the past century, the approaches between Princeton and Amsterdam, i.e., between Warfieldians and Kuyperians, have been compared.1 The differences between them are understood to be a further development of the disagreement between Benjamin B. Warfield on the one side and Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the other side.2

In the 1960s, Cornelius Van Til, professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, rejected Warfield's apologetic method and wrote: "I have chosen the position of Abraham Kuyper."3 The 1979 study by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim on the relationship between the concept of inerrancy and tradi­tional Reformed theology restarted the discussion about the differences between Princeton and Amsterdam. The study argued that the concept of inerrancy was a scholastic deviation from the Reformation and assumed that Kuyper and Bavinck differed greatly from Warfield.4 In reaction, others emphasized the resemblances

1 George M. Marsden {Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 151) introduced this distinction to explain differences between evangelicals who "believe in one science or rationality on which all humanity ought to agree" and others "who emphasize that any discipline is built on starting assumptions and that Christians' basic assumptions should have substantial effects on many of their theoretical conclusions in a discipline." The Warfieldians and the Kuyperians do not neces­sarily identify themselves as such. According to Marsden, the differences between Warfield and Kuyper are related to differing concepts of the common ground between believers and nonbelievers. See his, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 115.

2 Harriet A. Harris, who concentrates on the differences between Warfield and Kuyper, concludes that there is a significant difference in their ordering of faith and evidence. Harriet A. Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 231.

3 Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 265.

4 Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 389.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND THE AUTOPISTU OF SCRIPTURE

in the views of the authority of Scripture.5 The debate has continued. In 1994, for

instance, Peter S. Heslam concluded that, despite their differences, Kuyper influ­

enced Warfield's view of Calvinism.6

It is commonly held that the Amsterdam and Princeton theologians appreciated

each others' theological work and considered each other to be friends.7 This does not

alter the fact that they differed in their appreciation of apologetics, even if the nature

and importance of this difference remains a matter of dispute. The difference, usu­

ally approached by comparing Warfield with Kuyper, tends to reduce Bavinck's role

in the discussion to that of Kuyper's aide de camp} This article will concentrate on

the relationship between Warfield and Bavinck in their views of the role of apolo­

getics. It will take Bavinck's reaction to Warfield's criticism into account and relate

that to their views of the authority of Scripture. As we will see, however, it is not

inerrancy that fuels the main difference between the theologians but their views on

the autopistic or self-convincing character of Scripture.9

In his 1903 review of Bavinck's book, The Certainty of Faith, Warfield praises

Bavinck's theological work, noting that he never consulted the Reformed Dogmatics

"without the keenest satisfaction and abundant profit."10 Nonetheless, he disagreed

5 Recently Richard B. Gaffin reissued two articles against Rogers and McKim in which he advocates

the view that Kuyper and Bavinck would not find it inappropriate to speak of the inerrancy of Scripture.

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., God's Word in Servant Form: Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck on the Doctrine of Scripture (Jackson, Miss.: Reformed Academic, 2008), 102. The two underlying articles by Gaffin, are "Old

Amsterdam and Inerrancy?" Westminster Theological Journal 44 (1982): 250-89; and, "Old Amsterdam

and Inerrancy?" Westminster Theological Journal45 (1983): 219-72. Andrew McGowan, however, stresses

the differences between both views. Α. Τ. B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an

Evangelical Heritage (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007).

6 Peter S. Heslam, "The Meeting of the Wellsprings: Kuyper and Warfield at Princeton," in Religion,

Pluralism, and Public Life: Abraham Kuyper's Legacy for the American Polity, ed. Luis E. Lugo (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1994), 22-44; idem, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper s

Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 251-56; idem, Creatinga Christian Worldview, 126-27, 186-90, on the differences with Warfield. Avery Dulles also discusses the matter in The

Assurance of Things Hoped For: A Theology of Christian Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 98-100.

7 For Warfield on Kuyper, see D. B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony 1869-1929, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 179-82.

8 Some examples are Sidney H. Rooy, "Kuyper vs. Warfield: An Historical Approach to the Nature

of Apologetics" (S.T.M. thesis, Union Theological Seminary, 1956); Mark A. Noll, ed., The Princeton

Theology, 1812-1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 41-42, 302-7; W Andrew Hoffecker, "Benjamin B.

Warfield," in Reformed Theology in America: A History of Its Modern Devehpment, ed. David F. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 60-86, 79; K. Riddlebarger, "The Lion of Princeton: Benjamin Breckinridge

Warfield on Apologetics, Theological Method and Polemics" (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary,

1997), 52-57, 292-98.

9 This article summarizes the discussion of Warfield and Bavinck in my book, The Authority of Scripture

in Reformed Theobgy: Truth and Trust, Studies in Reformed Theology, vol. 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

10 Β. Β. Warfield, "A Review of De Zekerheid des Geloofi" Princeton Theological Review 1 (1903):

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

with Bavinck's position on apologetics because he found that his Dutch colleague downplayed the objective evidences of faith. Warfield did not understand the Dutch theologians' aversion to apologetics and remarked that "it is a standing matter of surprise to us that the school which Dr. Bavinck so brilliantly represents should be tempted to make so little of Apologetics."11 As I will show, this critical remark flows from different views on faith and evidences and is intertwined with a different concept of the autopistia of Scripture.

The Certainty of Faith (1901)

"Doubt has now become the sickness of our century, bringing with it a string of moral problems and plagues," writes Bavinck in The Certainty of Faith}1 In the intro­duction, Bavinck places the problem of the certainty of faith in a historical perspective. In the second chapter on the meaning of certainty in religion and science, he states that the soul's deepest religious need is to know that God exists and that he is our God. Science cannot satisfy our hunger for certainty; it is the task of theology to deal with the mystery of ultimate certainty and to prove itself in practical life.

Certainty differs from truth in that truth is the correspondence of thought and reality. Certainty is not a relationship but a state of the subject, a resting of the spirit in the object of its knowledge. The certainty of faith also differs from scientific certainty because our deepest conviction is not the result of evidence. The roots of this certainty lie very deep. The consciousness of children falls in with the religious ideas in which they are brought up and then mostly the certainty of faith is born. Scientific certainty rests on rational grounds; the certainty of faith rests on revelation and on authority and is the fruit of faith that acknowledges this authority.

The subjective power of the certainty of faith, however, is much stronger than that of scientific certainty. Religious convictions are the deepest and most intimate of all because they root in the heart. The certainty of faith is the most perfect rest and the highest liberty of the spirit. "And with at least as much right as Descartes posited his cogito ergo sum—I think and therefore I am—the believer can say: credo ergo sum, ergo Deus est—I believe and therefore I am and therefore God is."13 This statement sounds very subjective, but Bavinck uses it to illustrate the strength of religious

138-48, 148. The review is reprinted in B. B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, vol. 2, ed. J. E. Meeter

(Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1970-1973), 106-23, 123. References below are to this

reprint.

11 Warfield, "Review of De Zekerheid^l 17; and "It is therefore characteristic of the school of thought of which Dr. Bavinck is a shining ornament to estimate the value of Apologetics somewhat lightly." Warfield, "Review of De Zekerheid" 114.

12 H. Bavinck, De zekerheid des geloofi (Kampen: Kok, 19011). The references are to the third edition,

H. Bavinck, De zekerheid des geloofi (Kampen: Kok, 1918), 8. The booklet was translated into English.

H. Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith, trans. H. Der Nederlanden (St. Catharines, Ont.: Paideia, 1980), 8.

13 "En met minstens evenveel recht als CARTESIUS zijn cogito, ergo sum, ik denk, daarom ben ik,

poneerde, kan de geloovige zeggen: credo, ergo sum, ergo Deus est, ik geloof, daarom ben ik en daarom is

God." Bavinck, Zekerheid des gehofi, 32 (Bavinck, Certainty of Faith, 30).

34

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND THE AUTOPISTIA OF SCRIPTURE

certainty. It is not meant as a method to demonstrate the truth of God's existence. Nevertheless, it reveals a tendency in Bavinck's thought on the issue, and statements like this understandably evoked the criticism of Princetonian apologetics.

The third chapter deals with the different ways in which this certainty has been sought, outside of and especially in the Christian religion. Catholicism disallowed the emancipation of Christians, keeping the souls in a restless and so-called whole­some tension. The Reformation was born from the quest for the certainty of salvation. Luther and Calvin held a new and original view of the essence of Christianity; for them faith was a certain knowledge and a firm trust, a conviction that excluded all doubt. Protestantism of the sixteenth century exchanged faith for the orthodoxy of the seventeenth century; the confession of faith was replaced by faith in the confession. This exchange provoked a rationalism that sought the essence of religion in the intel­lect and a pietism that sought this essence in the experience.

In the last chapter, "The Way to Certainty," Bavinck elaborates his own posi­tion. The method that seeks to convince by reasoning is not forbidden or unprof­itable. Christianity, on the one hand, does have a historical side, and it is not unreasonable to believe, but, in the end, rational proofs are insufficient. On the other hand, religious feeling cannot be the foundation of the faith because then there is no objective standard for the truth; we cannot draw a conclusion from our religious emotions to the truth of our faith. Otherwise, everyone could say the same as Nicolas Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (1700-1760): "It is so to me, my heart tells me so."14

The Certainty of Faith, Second Edition

In the second edition (1903), Bavinck develops and explains several thoughts more broadly to meet the questions and remarks elicited by the first edition. He acknowledges Warfield's "friendly and instructive review,"15 in which Warfield won­dered what exactly Bavinck meant by certitude: "If we understand Dr. Bavinck, he considers that the two things most commonly connoted by the term always go together: that 'certitude of the truth of the Christian religion' and 'assurance of faith' imply one another, and neither is ever present without the other—both being the fruit indeed of one single act of faith."16

According to Warfield, faith always rests on evidences, and the evidence that the Christian religion is true is not necessarily the same as the evidence that one is a

14 Bavinck, Zekerheid des gehofi, 77 (Bavinck, Certainty of Faith, 72). N. L. Von Zinzendorf, "Eine Rede von dem klaren und unumstößlichen Beweise der Evangelischen Predigt," from "Anhang," by Ν. L. Von Zinzendorf, in Hauptschriften: in sechs Bänden, ed. E. Beyreuther and G. Meyer (Hildesheim 1963), 4.15-28, 17-18. "Es gibt keine andere demonstrationem evangelicam, die man anfuhren kan, es gibt keinen andern beweis der bibel-wahrheit als: mein herz sagt mirs, das ist der evangelische beweis." O. Uttendörfer, Zinzendorfi Weltbetrachtung, Bücher der Brüder, vol. 6 (Berlin: [n.p.], 1929), 233-34.

15 H. Bavinck, De zekerheid des geloofi (Kampen: Kok, 19032), 5.

16 Warfield, "Review of Zekerheid^ 112.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Christian. He found that Bavinck reversed the natural order by assuming that sav­ing faith is a necessary prerequisite of the certainty regarding the Christian religion. In his opinion, the conviction of the truth, on the contrary, preceded the commitment to Christ. "'Faith' is the gift of God. But it does not follow that the 'faith' that God gives is not grounded in 'the evidences.'"17 For Bavinck, the evidences were merely an extra, posterior means of assurance; for Warfield, faith principally rested on evi­dences even if the believer was unconscious of the fact. The Holy Spirit, in working out faith, supplies a new power to the heart to respond to the grounds of faith—the evidences that are sufficient in themselves.

Bavinck had written that the evidences only touched the external side of the facts; did not penetrate into the heart; and, at best, only led to a historical faith. Rational arguments could produce nothing more than "historical faith." Warfield replied: "This is true. But then 'historical faith' is faith—is a conviction of mind; and it is, as Dr. Bavinck elsewhere fully allows, of no little use in the world. The truth therefore is that rational argumentation does, entirely apart from that spe­cific operation of the Holy Ghost which produces saving faith, ground a genuine exercise of faith."18

In the second edition of The Certainty of Faith, Bavinck acknowledges Warfield's point when he admits that the question regarding the certainty of faith is twofold: It can be related to the truth and it can be related to the personal share in salvation. Both kinds of certainty must be kept close together, but they must still be distinguished.

Where in the first edition Bavinck wrote that the evidences are insufficient to prove the truth of Christianity, in the second, he claims that these evidences are insufficient to move someone to believe the truth of Christianity.19 A comparison with Reformed Dogmatics reveals the same shift of emphasis; in the subsequent editions Bavinck adds a paragraph to the discussion of the historic-apologetic method in which he empha­sizes the positive aspects of apologetics.20

These shifts leave the impression that Bavinck is strongly influenced by Warfield, but, in additions elsewhere, Bavinck emphasizes that faith does not depend on evi­dences. If Scripture were normal history and there were no sinful obstinacy in the heart, then the evidences might be sufficient to prove its truth, but this is not the case. If the gospel itself lacks the power to move one to faith, how can evidences—brought forth by human beings—have that power? Evidences, he insists, "are important in

17 Warfield, "Review of Zekerheid: 114.

18 Warfield, "Review of Ztkerheid? 115.

19 Bavinck, Zekerheid des gehofi1, 55; Bavinck, Zekerheid des geloofi', 63 (Bavinck, Certainty of Faith,

59). A similar shift is made when Bavinck omits die phrase: "A scientific demonstration cannot and should

not precede the Christian faith, neither is it necessary." Bavinck, Zekerheid des geloofix, 64; Bavinck, Zekerheid

des geloofi, 79.

20 H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 4th ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1928-1930), 1.481. English transla­

tion, ReformedDogmattcs, ed. John Bolt, trans. J. Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003-2008), 1.515. This

paragraph is missing in the first edition. H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmattek (Kampen: Bos, 1895-1901),

1.430.

36

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND WEAUTOPISTIA OF SCRIPTURE

the scholarly debate, but they have little religious value, for no person's religious life

is grounded on them or nurtured by them."2 1

In the first edition, Bavinck says that the rational evidences only touch the external

side of the facts and do not penetrate into their heart and essence. "At the best they

only lead to a historical faith."22 Probably replying to Warfield's remark on "historical

faith," Bavinck writes in the second edition that "historical faith reduces revelation to

an ordinary history that took place in the past and no longer concerns us; it takes away

from the Word of God exactly that which is the core and heart and what still makes it

a Gospel—the good news of salvation—today."23

For Warfield, historical faith—the result of rational argumentation—was the

porch of saving faith, the result of the enlightening of the mind by the Spirit by which

we are convinced of the validity of the evidences. Saving faith and historical faith

were essentially different for Bavinck for which reason he rejected Warfield's rational

approach: "For faith has from the beginning ... a religious character. It is not first

historical knowledge that is later supplemented by trust or love, but it is of itself a

religious attitude, a practical knowing that applies to myself an approbation of the

promises of God made to me."24 Where Warfield emphasizes the work of the Spirits

operating through human intellectual arguments, Bavinck insists on the difference

between arguments that lead to historical faith and the work of the Spirit that leads

to saving faith. These different positions are related to both theologians' views of the

authority of Scripture.

Authority of Scripture

Bavinck and Warfield agree that the authority of Scripture is foundational for

Reformed theology, but they approach the subject from different angles. Bavinck

criticizes the orthodox Reformed view of inspiration as too mechanical and advo­

cates an organic concept of inspiration; the secondary authors may not be lifted

out of their original contexts.25 Although he also acknowledges a broader work

of the Spirit in the preparation of human authors, Warfield is closer to Reformed

orthodoxy, as is evident from his comparison of the authors of Scripture to musical

instruments, made, tuned, and played by God as the musician.26 Bavinck's view of

2 1 Bavinck, Zekerheid des geloofi, 65 (Bavinck, Certainty of Faith, 60).

22Bavinck, Zekerheid des geloofi1, 57.

2 3 Bavinck, Zekerheid des geloofi, 68. Cf. Bavinck, Certainty of Faith, 63.

2 4 Bavinck, Zekerheid des gehofi, 88. Cf. Bavinck, Certainty of Faith, 82.

2 5 "A mechanical notion ... detaches the Bible writers from their personality, as it were, and lifts them

out of the history of the time. In the end, it allows them to function only as mindless, inanimate instru­

ments in the hand of the Holy Spirit. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmanek, 1.401. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed

Dogmatics, 1.431.

2 6 "Human writers have contributed no quality of their own to the product, save as a musical instrument

may contribute a quality to the music played upon it." Β. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," in Johnsons Universal

Encyclopaedia: A New Edition (1909), reprinted in Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings 2.614-36, 628.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

the incarnation is not only an illustration or example but is also foundational for his

concept of revelation. The eternal Word has become flesh, and the spoken Word has

become Scripture; both modes of revelation are intimately connected.27 Warfield

criticizes the parallel between inspiration and incarnation because he fears it leaves

too much room for the human side of Scripture.28

This essay focuses on the autopistia or the self-convincing character of Scripture,

because the differing views of apologetics or the role of evidences for faith show

up clearly on that topic.29 When discussing the correct dogmatic method in his

Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck uses the term autopistos. The Christian theologian

must take his starting position in Christian revelation. Objective neutrality is

impossible for a Christian because he cannot reject the light of God's revelation in

perceiving nature, history, and the non-Christian religions.30 The question of where

this revelation can be found, determines the dogmatic method. Rationalism and

mysticism take the human subject as the source of revelation, but the human subject

cannot be a proper source of knowledge of the truth. The mind and heart, reason

and conscience, feeling and imagination are not the sources of truth but the organs

by which it is absorbed and appropriated. Roman Catholicism admits that a starting

point in the autonomous religious subject is impossible and therefore has bound the

individual's faith to the church. An infallible church and pope constitute the faith

of the Roman Catholic; "Papa dixit is the end of all contradiction."31 Rome justly

rejects subjectivism, but the hierarchical power of the church binds the conscience,

as church history shows.

A good dogmatic method takes Scripture, the church, and the Christian con­

sciousness, into account. It is, therefore, of great importance to understand how

these three are related to each other.32 Thus, because the truth of God's revelation

2 7 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.405. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.434. Bavinck already

expressed this idea in his first inaugural address: De wetenschap der Heilige Godgeleerdheid (Kampen:

Zalsman, 1883), 9.

2 8 He is afraid that the analogy "may easily be pressed beyond reason. There is no hypostatic union

between the Divine and the human in Scripture; we cannot parallel the 'inscripturation of the Holy Spirit

and the incarnation of the Son of God." Β. B. Warfield, "Inspiration," in the International Standard Bible

Encychpaedia, ed. J. Orr (Chicago: Howard-Severance, 1915), 1473-83, reprinted in B. B. Warfield, The

Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. E. D. Warfield, W. P. Armstrong, and C. W Hodge (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1981), 1.77-112, 108.

2 9 "Self-convincing" is to be preferred above "self-evident" as a translation of the Greek term autopis­

tos. "Self-authenticated" or "self-authenticating" are also often used, but these words focus more on the

origin of Scripture than on the way it functions for the believer. Any proper translation should maintain

the element of trust from the Greek noun pistis. Moreover, the translation, "convincing in itself" or "self-

convincing" corresponds with the use of the term in its original philosophical context. See T. L. Heath,

The Thirteen Books of Euclid's Elements, 3rd ed. (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), 1.121-22. For a

discussion of the translation in Calvin's Institutes, see van den Belt, Truth and Trust, 2-5, 51-58.

3 0 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.54. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.78.

3 1 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.57. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.81.

3 2 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.60. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.84. In the first

38

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND THE AUTOPISTIA OF SCRIPTURE

flows from Scripture through the church into the consciousness of the believer, the

church comes before Scripture from a pedagogical point of view. Logically, however,

Scripture is the unique principle of the church and of theology. "Not the church

but Scripture is autopistos, the judge of controversies, and of its own interpretation.

Nothing can be placed on one line with it. Church, confession, tradition—every­

thing must be directed according to and subjected to Scripture."33

In his ecclesiology, Bavinck states that the Reformation rejected the ultimate

authority of the church and replaced it with the ultimate authority of Scripture.

Over against the Roman Catholic charge that the Reformation leads to subjec­

tivism, Bavinck states that Rome takes the same subjective starting point as the

Reformation. For the Reformation, Scripture is autopistos and, for Rome, the church

is autopistos; in both cases, the Spirit of God is necessary to convince believers of the

fact. "The deepest ground of faith is also for Rome not Scripture or the church, but

the Inner Light."34

One of the arguments of Rome against the Reformation is its implicit subjectiv­

ism because it bases its belief in the Scriptures on the testimonium of the Spirit. For

Rome, the external authority of the church safeguards the certainty of the Christian

faith. Bavinck shows that the Roman Catholic position is at least as subjective as

the Reformed position because the belief of the Roman Catholics in the author­

ity of the church ultimately rests on the inner conviction of the individual by the

Spirit of God. Bavinck also admits that the Reformed belief in the authority of

Scripture ultimately rests on the same subjective conviction. He rejects subjectivism

but acknowledges the subjective character of the Protestant position in the discus­

sion with Rome.

"Faith" in the Prolegomena

In the light of the Reformed orthodox tradition, it is remarkable that Bavinck

discusses faith in his prolegomena. Generally, faith is discussed in the context of the

work of the Spirit, and more specifically as a part of soteriology. Bavinck knows that

his discussion of faith in the introduction of a dogmatic system is an exception in

the Reformed tradition.

Although Bavinck does not explain why he locates faith in his prolegomena, it

may be because the perspective of the believer is his starting point. Bavinck under­

stands that the prolegomena do not precede but form an integral part of the dog­

matic system. His philosophical and theological epistemology is also dominated by

edition, Bavinck wrote: "Scripture, the church and the personal conviction of the theologian." Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dog/matted, 1.14, 21.

33 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.63. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.86. 34 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4.293. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.309. Cf. Bavinck,

Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.549-50 where Bavinck makes exactly the same point, referring to Melchior Cano (1509-1560) as an example of a Roman Catholic theologian who openly confessed this "subjective" perspective. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.579-80.

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

the correspondence between object and subject. The discussion of Scripture as the principium externum of theology leads to the discussion of ait principium internum of theology. At this point, Bavinck differs from Reformed orthodoxy, which does not call faith a principium internum of theology. A further reason possibly lies in the quest for the deepest ground of faith. Bavinck opens his paragraph on faith with the remark that the principium internum of the Christian religion and theology cannot lie in the mind, or in reason, or in the heart, or in the will of the natural human being. "No proofs or demonstrations, no religious experience or moral satisfaction can constitute the deepest ground of faith; they all presuppose a firmer foundation upon which they are built and from whence they derive their value."35 Faith has a certainty of its own kind; it is different from the scientific certainty that rests on observation, argumentation, and self-evidence. Faith's certainty is stronger than that of knowledge; martyrs are willing to die for their faith, not for a scientific thesis. Even so, faith cannot be its own final ground; it cannot prove the truth of what it believes. For Bavinck, there is a great difference between subjective certainty and objective truth.

The authority of Scripture, however, rests in itself but cannot be proved. "Scripture is autopistos and therefore the final ground of faith. A deeper ground cannot be given. The only answer to the question: 'Why do you believe Scripture?' is: 'Because it is the Word of God.' But if the next question is: 'Why do you believe that Holy Scripture is the Word of God?' the Christian cannot give an answer."36

The notae and criteria of Scripture cannot be the grounds of our faith; they are only characteristics that we discover in Scripture. The autopistia of Scripture is the deep­est ground of faith.

Answering the objection that a Muslim can prove his faith in the Koran in the same way, Bavinck refers to the evidences of the revelation. The deepest ground of faith is the divine authority of the revelation, but this does not mean that a Christian has to be silent against opponents; believers and unbelievers are in the same posi­tion because the convictions on both sides are rooted in the heart and can only be supported by arguments a posteriori. "Historical and rational proofs will not convert anyone, but for the defense of the faith they are as strong as the arguments of the opponents for the justification of their unbelief."37 The testimonium is not the wit­ness of a private spirit but of the Spirit who dwells in all believers; therefore, it is also the witness given by the church of all ages to Scripture as the Word of God.

Warfield and Autopistia

On the occasion of Calvin's four hundredth anniversary in 1909, Warfield dis­cussed the first chapters of the 1539 Institutes in "Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God." In this article, he argued that Calvin "set a compressed apologetica! treatise

35 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.532. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.563.

36 Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.559. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.589.

37Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1.560-61. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1.591.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND THE AUTOPISTIA OF SCRIPTURE

in the forefront of his little book"3 8 Calvin was the first to draw a plan for a complete

structure of apologetics. In his summary of Calvin, Warfield states that the knowl­

edge of God cannot be restored merely by the special revelation of God in Scripture

because Scripture provides only the objective side of the cure; the subjective side

is provided by the testimonium of the Spirit. This testimony of the Spirit, Warfield

argues, is reparative. It enables sinners' souls to see the light of the Word. It is the

subjective action of the Spirit that opens the heart to the objective revelation of God.

The Spirit's action is not extra revelation nor does it take the place of the objective

Word of God; it only implants or restores a spiritual sense to the soul by which God

is recognized in his Word.

This testimony of the Spirit is necessary because God's special revelation in

Scripture does not provide the entire cure of our blindness. Scripture only provides

the objective side of the cure; the subjective side is provided by the testimonium.

To Warfield's disappointment, Calvin did not relate the testimonium regarding the

authority of Scripture to the work of the Spirit in a broader sense. He attributes

this to Calvin's preoccupation with Rome. Even so, Warfield argues, this subject

is only one application of the general doctrine of faith; therefore Calvin's doctrine

of the testimonium must be treated as a special application of Calvin's doctrine of

faith and not as an isolated doctrine.39 According to Warfield, the divine origin of

Scripture can be proved objectively by the evidences. In addition to the testimony

of the church about Scripture's origin, Calvin had enough other irrefutable argu­

ments to prove it. Thus, in the doctrine of the testimonium, Calvin was not dealing

with the rational evidence of the divine origin of Scripture but with true faith. The

attestation of Scripture that he was seeking was not meant for the intellect only but

for the whole soul.

Warfield rejects the idea that the testimony of the Spirit creates an ungrounded

faith in the divinity of the Scriptures, as if, according to Calvin, believers are assured

of the divinity of Scripture apart from all other evidence. For Warfield, there is no

antithesis between the evidences and the testimonium. The fact that the indicia are

insufficient apart from the testimonium does not mean that the testimonium is suffi­

cient apart from the indicia. The Spirit testifies through the indicia, that is, the Spirit

removes the intellect's sinful blindness so that it can recognize the indicia. Having

recognized the indicia of Scripture's divinity in this way, the soul confides in that

divinity. Warfield admits that "in treating of the indicia Calvin does not, however,

3 8 B. B. Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God," Princeton Theological Review 7 (1909)

219-325, reprinted in Warfield, Works, 5.29-130. Warfield leans on Köstlins opinion regarding the

Institutes of 1539. "Bereits erhebt sich so bei ihm ein in den Grundzügen fertiges Gebäude christlicher

Apologetik. Er steht met demselben schon 1539 einzig da unter den Reformatoren und unter den bisheri­

gen christlichen Theologen überhaubt." J. Köstlin, "Calvins Institutio, nach Form und Inhalt, in ihrer

geschichtlichen Entwicklung," Theologische Studien und Kritiken 41 (1868): 7-62, 410-86, 39.

39 Warfield, "Calvins Doctrine of the Knowledge of God," 72. Faith lays hold of Christ and "it is one

of the exercises of this faith to lay hold of the revelation of this Christ in the Scriptures with assured con­

fidence." Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God," 76.

41

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

declare this in so many words";40 he does not conceal his regret of that omission. Schleiermacher revived the doctrine of the testimonium in reaction to rationalism. With it came the bitter fruit of subjectivism and its rejection of the external author­ity of Scripture. This explains Warfield's fear of subjectivism and his rejection of the testimonium as the ground of faith.

The Greek term autopistos occurs only once in Warfield's oeuvre—in a translation of Heppe.41 This does not mean that the idea of the autopistia of Scripture is absent from his mind. He says that the revelation of God is its own credential; Scripture needs no other light than its own. The witness of the Spirit renders the Scriptures self-authenticating for believers via the marks of the divine origin of Scripture.

Warfield's objective approach to the relationship between the autopistia of Scripture and the testimonium of the Spirit differs from that of Bavinck, and he tries to avoid Bavinck's view by stressing the evidences or by pointing to the universal Christian witness regarding Scripture. Nevertheless, his epistemology is dominated by the subject-object dichotomy; something within us must necessarily correspond to the truth outside of us.

The autopistia of Scripture counterbalances the subjective tendency in Bavinck's theology. Bavinck understands the autopistia of Scripture as the objective counter­part of the testimonium internum. The autopistia of Scripture flows from its perma­nent theopneustia. God's objective revelation in Scripture has an inherent power to convince and to triumph over the world. This power only becomes effective through the work of the Spirit in the hearts of believers. Bavinck starts with the autopistia of Scripture and then explains the testimonium as the way in which self-convincing Scripture gains victory over the hearts of believers through the Spirit. The divine inspirer of Scripture also gives witness to Scripture, and, therefore, Scripture takes care of its own; victory in the consciousness of the church of Christ.

For Warfield, the apologetic character of the prolegomena is foundational for theology as a science; it establishes the grounds on which theology rests. God, reli­gion, revelation, Christianity, and Scripture must first be established in an intro­duction to theology. Bavinck approaches theology from the believer's perspective, and therefore the doctrine of Scripture belongs to theology itself. He also locates faith as principium internum in the foundational structure of theology. Warfield understands the prolegomena as that which must be said first as an introduction to theology; Bavinck takes them as those things that must be said first in the context of theology. Warfield places the authority of Scripture in the outer court of apologetics; Bavinck in the sanctuary next to saving faith.

40 Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God," 88.

41 B. B. Warfield "The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture," Presbyterian and Reformed Review 4 (1893): 582-655, reprinted in Warfield, Works, 6.155-257, 165.

HERMAN BAVINCK AND BENJAMIN Β. WARFIELD ON APOLOGETICS AND THE AUTOPISTIA OF SCRIPTURE

Conclusions

Although Bavinck and Warfield differ in their conclusions, both interpret the

relationship between the autopistia of Scripture and the testimonium of the Spirit

in Calvin's theology in terms of objective truth and subjective certainty of the

truth. This is an attractive interpretation because the stained glasses of the object-

subject dichotomy in modernity easily lead to a misunderstanding of Calvin at this

point—one that separates the objective authority of Scripture from the subjective

certainty of faith. This is not the case with Bavinck and Warfield; their differences

flow from the different ways in which they explain the relationship between the

autopistia and the testimonium. Warfield defines the testimonium as a subjective

operation by which the soul is opened to the objective revelation of God. Bavinck

takes the autopistia of Scripture as the objective correspondent to the subjective

testimonium internum. Warfield understands the testimonium as the subjective

counterpart to objective revelation, Bavinck takes the autopistia of Scripture as the

objective counterbalance to faith as the principium internum. The interpretation of

the autopistia as something objective and the testimonium as something subjective

is a modern problem.

The subject-object dichotomy can lead to an objective understanding of the

authority of Scripture, as in the case of Warfield. In his theology, this emphasis is

counterbalanced by the acknowledgement of the subjective operation of the Spirit

on the heart, but if this counterbalance falls away, his position leads to intellectual-

ism. The objective interpretation of the authority of Scripture denies the special

character of Scripture and makes the autopistia superfluous.

This dichotomy leads to subjectivism in the case of Bavinck. His distinction has

influenced the later development of Neo-Calvinism and may even have paved the

road for liberalism in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. At minimum,

one can trace a dotted line from Bavinck's idea of a correspondence between object

and subject via Berkouwer's concept of correlation between revelation and faith, to

the relational concept of the truth in the report God with Us (1981).42 For Bavinck,

the subjective emphasis on faith and the testimonium was counterbalanced by the

autopistia of Scripture, but, if this counterbalance falls away, his position leads to

relativism.

42 T. Baarda, J. Davidse, and J. Firet, Godmetons:... over de aard van hetSchriftgezag, Kerkinformatie, vol. 113 (Leusden: Informatiedienst, 1981), English translation, T. Baarda, J. Davidse, and J. Firet, God with Us: On the Nature of the Authority of Scripture, trans, secretariat of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod (Grand Rapids: R.E.S., 1982).

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.