Herman Bavinck’s Trinitarian Theology:
The Ontological, Cosmological, and Soteriological Dimensions
of the Doctrine of the Trinity
by
Gayle Elizabeth Doornbos
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and Graduate Centre for Theological
Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College
© Copyright by Gayle Elizabeth Doornbos 2019
ii
Herman Bavinck’s Trinitarian Theology:
The Ontological, Cosmological, and Soteriological Dimensions of the
Doctrine of the Trinity
Gayle Elizabeth Doornbos
Doctor of Philosophy in Theology
University of St. Michael’s College
2019
Abstract
Recent scholarship on the Dutch, Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) has
opened up new possibilities for examining the role of the doctrine of the Trinity in Bavinck’s
systematic theology. Building on current research, this thesis suggests that Bavinck’s systematic
theology can be identified as thoroughly trinitarian by identifying the ways that he uses the doctrine
positively (structuring, norming, and informing) and negatively (apologetic) to construct his
dogmatic theology. To do this, this dissertation utilizes an intriguing statement made by Bavinck
within his treatment of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in his Reformed Dogmatics
concerning the ontological, cosmological, and soteriological dimensions of the doctrine of the
Trinity as a framework for understanding his systematic project. Taking this statement to indicate
a trinitarian line of reasoning within Bavinck, this thesis argues that Bavinck’s systematic theology
can be understood as his articulation of the ontological, cosmological, and soteriological
dimensions of the Trinity properly distinguished, developed, and related to one another.
Primarily expositional in nature, constructive in analysis, and creative in its use of the
ontological, cosmological, and soteriological dimensions, this dissertation situates the current
thesis within Bavinck scholarship (Introduction), provides an extended defense of using the
iii
dimensions (Chapter 1), and articulates each dimension and their relationships to one another
(Chapters 2-4). While the primary goal of this thesis is to contribute to Bavinck scholarship, the
closing chapter shifts to suggest Bavinck as a conversation partner to contemporary discussions
concerning the systematic role of the doctrine of the Trinity and constructive development of
doctrine (Chapter 5).
iv
Acknowledgements
One does not complete a dissertation without aid, support, and encouragement. Looking
back, there are countless people without whom this dissertation would not have been completed.
First, I must thank my supervisor, Dr. Joseph Mangina, who encouraged me to pursue a topic
that I cared about and offered crucial feedback and assistance along the way. Thanks are also in
order for the those who served on my committee: Dr. Robert Sweetman, Dr. John Vissers, and
Fr. Gilles Mongeau, SJ. Dr. Vissers and Rev. Dr. Mongeau helped shape this project in its early
stages, and Dr. Sweetman offered invaluable feedback on the project that shaped my finished
project. I thank him for pushing me and engaging me throughout my thesis. The final product is
better because of his input.
Thanks are also due to the person through whom I was really introduced to Bavinck: Dr.
John Bolt. His friendship, encouragement, and ongoing engagement with me have taught me a
great deal. More than that, his love for the church and passion for theology have impacted me in
innumerable ways. He has given me many great gifts. I also thank him for reading over the
manuscript of this dissertation and offering encouragement and feedback.
I also wish to thank the others who have guided me on my academic journey. Dr. John
Cooper of Calvin Theological Seminary taught me how to read carefully and well—an
invaluable gift. He also gave me a love for philosophical theology and a passion for seeing the
relationship between theology and praxis. For these gifts, I am deeply thankful. My other
professors at Calvin Theological Seminary deserve thanks for teaching me to love the Reformed
tradition. And finally, I thank my professors at Redeemer University College for encouraging me
to pursue academics. I would not be where I am today had they not advised me to pursue further
education. I also want to extend gratitude to my teachers at the Toronto School of Theology as
v
well as to Dr. Timothy Connor whom I worked for as a Teaching Assistant and offered his
encouragement and advice to me throughout my time at TST.
In terms of support and encouragement, there are no adequate words to thank the two
ecclesiastical communities that I was a part of during this process: Hebron CRC and Sonlight
CRC. These communities not only prayed for me and supported me, but they kept me grounded
during times of stress and trial. A special note of thanks is due to ladies involved in the Women’s
Ministry at Sonlight CRC who were my ever-present cheerleaders, especially during the last
stages of this dissertation.
Finally, I owe thanks to the friends and family who have been with me throughout this
whole process. To all my friends and extended family, of whom there are too many to name,
thank you for your support and encouragement. To my dad, who from a young age taught me to
love the church and its people, thank you. You were the first one who engaged me in theological
conversation, and there is no doubt in my mind that you instilled in me a deep curiosity, love of
learning, and delight in theology. Thank you. To my mom, who taught me from a young age to
pursing your work with, joy, tenacity, and passion, thank you. Thank you also for the countless
hours you spent providing counsel and support throughout my doctorate. And finally, to my
husband Kyle, thank you for your love, support, encouragement, and patience. You have been an
endless source of encouragement to me, and I could not have completed this dissertation without
you. Your passion for theology and joy in serving the church have inspired me and continue to
shape my own approach to theology. Thank you also for providing me with countless hours of
joyful theological discussions and much needed distractions during this long journey.
vi
Contents
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Thesis Statement ................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Development and Goals ..................................................................................... 8
2. Herman Bavinck: The Neo-Calvinist between Two Worlds ......................................... 10
2.1 Early Life: Son of a Secessionist Pastor .......................................................... 11
2.2 Education: From Kampen to Leiden ............................................................... 12
2.3 Neo-Calvinism and Nineteenth-Century Dutch Protestant Theology ............. 14
2.4 Theologian, Philosopher, and Statesman: The Neo-Calvinist between Two
Worlds ................................................................................................................... 17
3. Current State of Bavinck Scholarship: Two Bavincks and The Doctrine of God (Status
Quaestionis) ....................................................................................................................... 19
4. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 31
4.1 Method and Sources: Chapters 1-4 .................................................................. 31
4.2 Limitations and the Question of Periodization ................................................ 33
4.3 Method and Sources: Chapter 5 ....................................................................... 35
5. Structure ......................................................................................................................... 35
Chapter 1: An Extended Defense ............................................................................................... 38
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 38
2. Bavinck’s Theological Prolegomena ............................................................................. 39
2.1 Bavinck’s Theological Prolegomena in Historical Context ............................ 39
2.2 Irreducibly Theocentric: Dogmatics as the “Scientific System of the
