Herman Bavinck's mistakes on the Remonstrants

The reason why I’m writing this blog post is that I was reading through some of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, mainly the 2nd volume and he makes some bad critiques when it comes to the Remonstrants and a massive blunder. So I just want to go through the areas where Bavinck talks about the Remonstrants on the attributes of God. The first section will deal with immutability which Bavnick says the Remonstrants attacked then I will look at simplicity since those are the main areas where he talks about the Remonstrants and I’m not gonna talk about middle knowledge since Bavnick doesn’t make a mistake in attributing to them middle knowledge. 

Bavinck on page 155 says “On the one hand, Pelagianism, Socinianism, Remonstantism and rationalism, which especially opposes the immutability of God knowing and willing and makes the will of God dependent on and hence change in accordance with the conducts of humans.”  But when we go to the Remostant confession we don’t see an attack on God’s immutability in chapter 2 section 6 of the confession it says “He is eternal, because He always was, ever is, and likewise will be, without any beginning or end, or any alteration. Indeed [He is] the only [being] who is necessarily living by nature, or having life and immortality from Himself, and therefore in Himself [is] forever unchangeably incorruptible, and in every way immutable. Finally, [He is] the supreme author and only bestower of eternal life, graciously promised to us in Jesus Christ.” So  we see Simon Episcopius who is the author of this confession says that God is immutable in every way possible since Bavinck main areas he points to are God’s knowledge and His willing but does the confession teach that no it does not. Chapter 2 section 8 says on God’s knowledge “He is omniscient, and certainly of infallible knowledge, because He not only intimately knows absolutely everything which has being, just as they are individually in themselves, whether good or evil, past, present, future, likewise possible and hypothetical, indeed even the most intimate thoughts of the heart, the most secret words, the most hidden deeds (under which also we will include matters of omission), but also because He keeps them most present in memory, and sees whatever is done by us, correctly or otherwise, as if set before His eyes, so that this knowledge cannot be erased either by ignorance or oblivion, nor fraud or trickery, nor any deceit or deception. Finally, He most wisely knows how to order, dispose, direct and manage all things, and so perpetually.” And I will quote from Philip Van Limborch body of divinity here as well to prove this too “The Manner of the Divine Knowledge it is most perfect, for it is not in God as a Habit, but as an Act in the highest degree of perfection  and therefore at one view he knows all things by a simple and pure act of the Intellect.” And before someone says well that doesn’t mean that Limborch believes that God’s knowledge is immutable here is a quote from him on pg 58 of his body of divinity “as also that He is Immutable being free from all kind of change or Inconstancy, either in his Substance, Attributes or Purposes.” So I think it’s pretty clear that at the Remonstrants in their confession which was written by the heir of Arminius Simon Episcopius and from Limborch a very important theologian within the Remonstrant tradition believed that God’s knowledge was immutable now lets see if God’s will is immutable as well.  

  Now section 9 in the same chapter concerning the will of God states “His will is completely free, because He cannot be forced to will, reject or permit [anything] either by the inward necessity of His nature, nor by external power either of some force or the efficacy of an object which either are outside Himself, or will be. But according to His most free judgment or the mere counsel of His will, or good pleasure, He extends Himself either to will, reject or permit them all. And indeed everything good He so wills them that He also approves and seeks them.”  And if we are keeping in mind that the confession explicitly says that God is immutable in every way this should be read in that light which would entail that God’s will is immutable and there is no statement in this section that says God’s will is mutable or changing. Now we know from Limborch he believes that God in his substance, Attributes and purposes are immutable so from the confession and from an important theologian both agree that God is immutable so Bavnick's critiques don't work on the entire Remonstrant tradition. Since just quoting from one theologian like Conrad Vorstius doesn’t represent the entire tradition I’m quoting from the confession and Limbroch because of two reasons. Firstly, these are the only primary sources from the Remonstrants in English since I don’t know Latin. So I don’t have that many resources to use. Secondly, the confession will be more authoritative than just a single theologian opinion  and why I use Limborch is because he was the first one to have a fully finished systematic theology since those before him started but never finished their systematic theologies. 

  Bavinck on page 175 goes on to the doctrine of simplicity he says about the Remonstrants “In the second chapter of their Confession they said they Scripture does not contain one syllable about the simplicity of God, that it is a purely metaphysical doctrine and not at all necessary for Christians to believe.” Now nowhere in the english translation of the 1621 Remonstant confession attacks the doctrine of divine simplicity. Now it’s true that the confession doesn’t mention simplicity when it talks about the attributes of God which in my opinion is dumb it should of been included but’s it’s false to say that the confession attacked simplicity. If we look at who wrote the confession (Episcopus) he affirms simplicity which Bavinck regionzes “while Episcopius still listed simplicity of God among the attributes” so the author of the confession affirms simplicity. Now the question will be why didn’t he mention it in the confession well it would be because when Episcopius listed the attributes of God he was going for the ones that are essential for salvation so he viewed it as something important but not essential. So you can agree with Episcopius' approach or you can disagree with him which I do when it comes to simplicity it should have been in the confession. Now Bavinck makes a massive blunder here when he says “Limborch no longer mentioned it” (simplicity) which is just false in Limborch’s body of divinity on page 56 he says “And here we may take occasion to say something of the Simplicity of God, as having a necessary affinity to his Spirituality. By the absolute Simplicity of God we mean his Freedom from all kind of Composition or Mixture, either of Principles or, of Parts: For he is not only one but as he is a Spirit he is exempt from all manner of Composition whatever. Reason itself teaches us that God cannot be compounded of any Principles, because the Principles and Ingredients which concur to the making of any thing, must be antecedent to that thing. And if the Divine Nature were compounded, it would follow that there must be something in Nature before him which is inconsistent with his being the first Cause.” So Bavick totally misses the mark here since he knows of Limborch and even cites Limborch on page 165 in his Reformed Dogmatics so I don’t understand how he can miss such a simple thing.

  So in all I looked at Banvicks claims that he makes about the Remonstrants when it comes to the doctrine of God and I think I showed how his attacks didn’t work since he was only really attacking Conrad Vorstius which Keith Stanglin an expert in 17th century Arminianism who says “classifies Condrad Vorstius as a Remonstrant, which should only be done only with a qualification.”  So I’m just gonna end this blog post with a quote from this excellent book from Keith Stanglin which is called After Arminus: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology. “Like Arminius, the Remonstrant held to the classical descriptions of God that were common to the Christian tradition.”