By Adi Schlebusch
The current widespread revival of discussions regarding the proper relationship between nature and grace is tremendously encouraging. A sizable minority of the church in the West—a faithful remnant—finally seem to be in the process of liberating ourselves from the shackles of Neo-Gnosticism, a heresy which has, for far too long, been used to neuter the church and keep her in conformity with the diabolic Neo-Marxist agenda. Given the fact that mainstream theologians have for so long used the gnostic premise of the supremacy of the spiritual over the material to justify the Neo-Marxist levelling of all social distinctions and natural hierarchies, Stephen Wolfe’s recently released book, The Case for Christian Nationalism is certainly a most welcome publication. How much his work has actually enraged mainstream evangelical thinkers is particularly evident in the recent coordinated witch-hunt launched against Thomas Achord, a friend and close associate of Wolfe, which in my own estimation as well as that of others I’ve spoken to, is largely a proxy war against Wolfe as representative of the Christian Nationalist movement.
Encouraging developments such as the overwhelmingly positive reception of Wolfe’s book point towards the fact that the heretical modern church’s mainstream narrative of grace effectively doing away with nature, and its propositions regarding globalism, feminism, transgenderism and racial and ethnic amalgamation as supposedly in line with the gospel, is being increasingly challenged and deconstructed. This is certainly reason to rejoice, as a tremendous amount of progress is currently being made towards rediscovering and restoring historic Christian orthodoxy when it comes to the relationship between grace and nature, an important theme of Wolfe's work.
While a return to orthodoxy is certainly evident in many Presbyterian and Reformed circles, what still seems to be missing in a lot of these discussions and new literature, though, is a thorough appreciation of the Neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck’s immense contribution in this regard. I believe this underappreciation of Bavinck can almost exclusively be attributed to the fact that so many of those who falsely claim to be the heirs of Neo-Calvinist fathers such as Bavinck, are guilty of promoting this very neo-gnostic heresy. Now, for the sake of clarity I feel like I have to note that I am not a Neo-Calvinist myself and that I reject certain elements of Neo-Calvinist epistemology that are based in Kantianism in particular. For those who are interested in my position in this regard, see my recent publication on what I consider to be Hoedemaker’s superior Anti-Revolutionary epistemology which stands in stark contrast to Neo-Calvinism. That being said, a wholesale rejection of Bavinck’s work simply because of an epistemic error on his part would be completely irrational. All orthodox Calvinists agree that Calvin erred on the issue of usury, for example, but none would condemn the great reformer as a heretic on the basis that he wasn’t perfect. I believe that those who are serious about contributing to the continued rediscovery and reappreciation of the Christian understanding of the proper relationship between grace and nature should treat Bavinck by the same standard and earnestly look into what he has to say on this issue.
In the second part of his Reformed Dogmatics, published in 1897, Bavinck discusses how the entry of sin into the world did not lead to any loss of substance on the part of human beings in terms of their nature. Man remains man after the fall and the essence of his nature is not altered, even if that very nature has been depraved through sin. Bavinck then continues to note that even the classical two-kingdom theology which he associates with Lutheranism, effectuated
such a sharp separation between the spiritual and the worldly, between the heavenly and the and the earthly … that it ends up being divided into two hemispheres, effectuating a complete misconception of the relationship between grace and nature, [and] between creation and redemption.[1]
Bavinck, like the Reformer Heinrich Bullinger (1504—1575) maintained a twofold kingship of Christ, i.e. a regnum potentiae—a kingship of power, and a regnum gratiae—a kingship of grace,[2] albeit both as exercised in one universal, all-encompassing kingdom of God.[3] Over against what Bavinck rejects as Lutheranism’s two-kingdoms view, he maintains that it is only in Calvinism that “the image of God is rightly understood in terms of the relationship between substance and quality, nature and grace, [and] and creation and redemption.”[4] For Bavinck this implies opposing any view in which the depravity of the image of God in man is “seen independently of nature, as if the depravity thereof only implies that man is blind and deaf in spiritual matters, but still capable of achieving great heights when it comes to earthly matters independent of the grace of God in Christ.” Bavinck counters that as sin affects the whole man and every aspect of nature, so the grace of God’s redemption restores every aspect of nature, including human endeavors in the realm of society, politics, science and the arts.[5] For Bavinck such a view of both sin and grace respectively distorting and redeeming nature has decisively theonomic implications, since it is through Biblical law God's perpetual moral order for all societies is revealed:
The law is not abolished or set aside but rather fulfilled in Christ, in Whom it finds its true end. For this reason the New Testament [written after Christ] contains no laws that can be adopted by the civil government. It is from the Old Testament that we must therefore derive the eternal principles, which alone are capable of guaranteeing a flourishing family, society and state.[6]
Perhaps the most profound statement Bavinck ever made on the matter of the grace-nature relationship was in his 1913 publication Guidebook for Instruction in the Christian Religion, wherein he writes:
God does not manifest his covenant of grace by ripping people away from their humanity and establishing a covenantal community outside of our natural state, but He brings that covenant into humanity itself, makes it part of the world, and ensures that it remains protected from evil in this world. As Redeemer, God follows the same path He does as Creator and Ruler of all things. Grace is something different from nature, but it joins with nature so as not to destroy it but rather renew it. Grace is not an inheritance that is acquired by virtue of natural descent, but it is covenantally maintained through the natural relations imbedded in our human nature. The covenant of grace does not randomly jump to and from one individual to the next, but is maintained through families, generations and nations in an organic manner.[7]
For Bavinck this means that the one kingdom of God encompasses, penetrates and sanctifies every aspect of creation and human existence, which means that nature is in fact not only maintained and but sanctified through grace. He writes:
The kingdom of God is one over all the earth, and as such unrestricted by boundaries between countries and nations. Every state and every people therefore have the establishment of this one kingdom as its goal. But this does not mean that states cease to exhibit a particular character in terms of being distinctly national. In fact, just as the individual must seek the kingdom of God not beyond but in terms of his earthly calling, so too the kingdom of God requires of the state not to surrender its earthly calling or its unique national particularity, but rather to allow the kingdom of God to penetrate and saturate its people and its nation. In this way alone the kingdom of God is concretized. For this kingdom is not the effort of one single nation or another, not even of one people and of one government, but of all peoples and all governments. It is the common mission of the entire human race. Yet every nation and every state uniquely contribute to this mission, just as every individual does, either knowingly or unknowingly. The Kingdom of God therefore does not do away with the ethnic identity or particular calling of a people, but purifies peoples and incorporates every state and nation as particulars in co-operation with the whole.[8]
Bavinck adheres to an eschatological paradigm in which the all the nations and kingdoms of the world become Christ’s (Rev. 11:15). Although Bavinck was an amillennialist, he clearly harbored postmillennial sentiments. He also advocated theonomy. He adhered to a single kingdom theology in which Christ exercises a twofold kingship. He emphasized the Lordship of Christ over all areas of life. He was a Christian ethno-nationalist.
Even though I’ve only touched the surface here when it comes to Bavinck’s theology of grace redeeming nature, I trust that I’ve done enough to convince the reader that no discussion of this doctrine within the framework of Reformed theology can afford to fail to take into account Bavinck’s immense contribution in this regard.
The author is a senior researcher with the Pactum Institute.
[1] Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vierde deel (1901), p. 112-113.
[2] Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, tweede deel (1897), p. 534.
[3] Heinrich Bullinger, Semonem Decades (1559-1562), 4, p. 5-6.
[4] Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, tweede deel (1897), p. 534.
[5] Ibid., 535.
[6] Herman Bavinck, Welke algemeene beginselen beheerschen, volgens de H. Schrift, de oplossing der sociale quastie enz. Proces-verbaal van het Sociaal Congres, gehouden te Amsterdam den 9, 10, 11, 12 November 1891, 5.
[7] Herman Bavinck, Handleiding bij het onderwijs in den Christelijke godsdienst (1913), p. 115-116.
[8] Herman Bavinck, Het Rijk Gods; De hoogste goed. Kennis en leven: opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren (1922), p. 48-49.