Restored to Our Destiny_The Bavinck Institute

7/27/2019 Restored to Our Destiny_The Bavinck Institute

1/10


2/10

The past twelve months have been fruitful ones for Herman

Bavinck scholarship. In addition to the recently published award-winning student essays fromthe 2008 and 2011 Bavinck conferences (seeFive Studies and TBR 3), three Bavinck Society

members have recently published significant essays on various aspects of Bavincks thought andlife.

In order to introduce these authors and their works, the Bavinck Institute is starting a series of

author interviews. The first is with Dr. Brian G. Mattsonon his new bookRestored to Our

Destiny: Eschatology & the Image of God in Herman Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics, Studies inReformed Theology 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

LO: Brian, tell us a little about your background. Where did you grow up? Were you born

into a Christian home? How did you become interested in theology?

BM: Sure. First, let me thank you for this opportunity to do this interview. For authors ofacademic works, there is always a lingering anxiety that the book will languish in obscurity, and

Im grateful that The Bavinck Society is taking notice!

I was born and raised in Billings, Montana, or Big Sky Country, where I still reside today with

my wife and two daughters, enjoying every opportunity to fly-fish our blue-ribbon trout streams.I was the fourth of five children, and I was extremely blessed to have been born into a solidly

Christian family. My theological background is in the conservative Reformed community,

originally part of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church congregation that my parents helped plant,

but which now is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America. I was the first childbaptized in our congregation, and Im humbled to say that Ive been a continual, lifelong

member for the following thirty-five years.

My first interest in theology came in my early teens when I read Francis Schaeffers little bookHe Is There and He Is Not Silent. A small book, but much of it flew right over my head. That is

precisely what intrigued me! For the first time I realized that my faith had comprehensive

worldview implications that I could barely grasp. It was my introduction to an intellectually
http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/12/five-studies-in-the-thought-of-herman-bavinck/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/12/five-studies-in-the-thought-of-herman-bavinck/http://bavinckinstitute.org/review/http://bavinckinstitute.org/review/http://bavinckinstitute.org/review/http://www.drbrianmattson.com/about-me/http://www.drbrianmattson.com/about-me/http://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/12/five-studies-in-the-thought-of-herman-bavinck/http://bavinckinstitute.org/review/http://www.drbrianmattson.com/about-me/http://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destiny


3/10

robust Christian faith, and I was completely hooked. I flirted for a while with the idea of a career

in the law (my father worked in the legal field as a court reporter), but God had other plans.

Theology was, and continues to be, the passion of my heart.

LO: Where have your academic studies taken you? And who do you consider to be

significant influences upon your thought?

BM: I remained in Billings for my undergraduate degree, studying at our local branch of

Montana State University. I majored in history and minored in philosophy. From there I attendedWestminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia from 2001 to 2004, where I obtained a MAR

in theological studies. I was encouraged by a number of faculty members at WTS to pursue

advanced work in theology, and Carl Trueman was helpful in facilitating my transition to theUniversity of Aberdeen in Northeast Scotland. I spent three years in Aberdeen studying under

Donald Wood, a keen, gracious, and generous supervisor whose expertise is in the theology of

Karl Barth. Don encouraged me early on to take a closer look at Bavincka suggestion for

which I am eternally grateful! In Aberdeen I also had the opportunity to interact with John

Webster, who also graciously agreed (while on sabbatical) to be the internal examiner for myPhD thesis. Professor Webster is a deeply impressive scholar, only overshadowed by his deeply

impressive character as a godly Christian gentleman. The whole systematics faculty under hisleadership, in fact, was simply exemplary in that regard.

Significant influences: Besides Herman Bavinck, who magisterially sits at the very top of the list,

I have to include the late Greg Bahnsen, under whom I had the privilege of studying the history

of philosophy in my impressionable late-teens before his untimely death in 1995. Regardless ofhis being caught up in the unfortunate theonomy controversies of that (thankfully over) era, his

philosophical and apologetic work shaped me to a significant degree. That would include, of

course, a rather stellar introduction to Cornelius Van Til, from whom Ive benefitted to a

significant degree.

There are, of course, a few of the greats: I always benefit from reading Augustine and Calvin, but

find myself returning time and again (strangely enough) to Irenaeus of Lyons second-century

Against Heresies. If one perseveres through his sometimes bewildering catalogue of Gnosticschools, one finds a truly outstanding work of biblical and systematic theology. I think Irenaeus

has not only much in common with Bavinck in his tying together of anthropology and

eschatology but also much to contribute to contemporary theology, despite the vast historicaldistance.

Bringing the historical gap closer, I cannot neglect to mention Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Besides

being an unusually gracious professor and friend, his biblical-theological work seems to have

found a rather direct route into my intellectual DNA.


4/10

Dr. Brian Mattson

LO: One of the things I like most about your book is that you analyze both the forest and

the trees, so to speak, of Bavincks anthropology. I hear you saying that it is one thing to

parse what Bavinck says about eschatology or anthropology by themselves; it is another to

view both loci in light of each other; yet it is still another to view both in relation to their

underlying vertical (metaphysical) and horizontal (covenantal) grounds. Am I

understanding you correctly here? And am I right to conclude that, in your view, previous

scholarship has tended to take the first two roads, but the third is the only one that does

full justice to Bavincks anthropology?

BM: I think that is a fair characterization. Bavinck himself indicates that unless the covenant of

works (the basic import of which, as well see below, is to maintain an Augustiniananthropology) is included, one will not have understood the doctrine of the imago Dei fully.

Ill use Berkouwer as a brief example. In his book on the image of God, he spends the first sixty-

plus pages basically probing and, to his mind, undermining the classic distinction between the

broader and narrower senses of the image, which he believes to be stubbornly dualistic.He is quite honest that this reflects a discomfort with metaphysics. Additionally, completely

missing from his book (aside from the very narrow question of the immortality of the soul) is

the question of the eschatological telos of the image, or what Im calling the horizontal,covenant component. How does the original imago Dei relate to the ultimate destiny of

the imago Dei in Christ? Bavinck relates the two by way of covenant theology, and he believed

that if one does not ask that question, not to mention have an answer that organically relates thetwo, one will have a theology in which nature and grace exist in an uneasy tension (RomanCatholicism, Lutheranism), at war with each other (Anabaptism), or a theology in which grace

displaces nature altogether (anticipating, in some ways, Karl Barth; right where Berkouwer

arguably ended up).

Im suggesting that Berkouwer and nearly everybody else (Veenhof is an exception in some

ways) simply did not notice (or ignored for reasons having to do with a predetermined axe to


5/10

grind against scholasticism) the underlying covenantal architecture of Bavincks thought and

therefore underappreciated its theological value vis--vis the nature/grace question. It is not at all

clear to me that those who disregard the uniquely Reformed covenant theology undergirdingBavincks anthropology have replaced it with an anthropology that avoids the kind of

nature/grace dualism he was concerned about. In fact, Im fairly convinced they havent resolved

the nature/grace question with anything approaching his success and sophistication.

LO: When covenant theology is discussed nowadays, one usually doesnt hear people

talking about metaphysics. Yet, you make a strong case that, in Bavincks thought,

covenant theology is firmly grounded in the trinitarian Creator-creature relation. Do you

think that it is fair to say that the metaphysical aspect of covenant theology

is underappreciated in contemporary discussions? If so (or if not), why do you think this is

the case?

BM: Well, Ill leave aside that covenant theology of the federal variety generally isnta

subject of contemporary discussions outside of the rather narrow confines of conservative

Reformed circles! I remember well a systematics seminar in Scotland where a prominent RomanCatholic scholar, in rather irritable tones, complained to a Reformed postgraduate, saying: You

Reformed guys; its all about covenants! Covenant this and covenant that! That said, Iwouldnt say metaphysics is neglected in more narrow Reformed discussions. Obviously, for

example, much of the Kline/Murray debate over covenant theology has much to do with the

metaphysical character of covenant.

But metaphysics more broadly has clearly fallen on hard times, and we often think its demise isof more recent vintage than it really is. One of the benefits of reading Bavinck is that it becomes

clear that the rejection of metaphysics is not, as conventional wisdom sometimes has it, a

byproduct of postmodernisms critique of foundationalism. Bavincks entire theology is

presented in contrast to the anti-metaphysical climate of the late nineteenth century. What is sosignificant, to me, at any rate (and getting at your question), is how modernisms rejection of

metaphysics invariably resulted in a collapse of the Creator/creature distinction, seen, forexample, in Bavincks relentless critiques of the pantheism of Hegel and Schelling. This is one

thing that certainly hasnt changed in the much-vaunted postmodern turn. Rejecting

metaphysics seems as much today the gateway drug for pantheism just as much as it was in

Bavincks context.

I am not sure I am adequately answering your question, so Ill stick with this: I do believe, as did

Bavinck, that metaphysics cannot be wished away. With respect to his modernist interlocutors he

recognized that they were notrejecting metaphysics; they were providing an alternative

metaphysics. I believe the same is true with postmodernism. And if we want to replace themetaphysical worldview the Bible presents to us we will not be improving matters. Depart from

the Trinitarian Creator/creature distinction at your own risk. Not only will you not have an

adequate doctrine ofcovenant, in the end you wont have a doctrine of God or creation lefteither.

LO: The heart of your argument is that Bavincks anthropology stands or falls with his

covenant theology. In other words, one cannot abstract the one from the othera common


6/10

feature of previous interpretations of Bavincks anthropologywithout damaging both;

and, in particular, if one rejects Bavincks formulation of the covenant of works, one

necessarily rejects his understanding of the imago Dei. This is a bold thesis. In your view,

why have previous interpreters overlooked or ignored this important correlation?

BM: Really it is a feature of what you note in your next question: the covenant of works is atough sell. A generation of Bavinck scholars, in my view, wrongly followed Barth in his

caricature of federal theology as an allegedly rationalistic departure from the biblical fidelity ofthe early Reformers. Making that assumption licensed them to simply ignore all that covenant

of works stuff as unfortunate scholastic baggage that Bavinck thoughtlessly failed to jettison (I

document a good deal of this type of interpretation in the introduction to the book). Theoverlooking and ignoring was not necessarily intentional; it was far more presuppositional.

It was built in to their framework from the outset. My purpose in the book is to demonstrate that

Bavincks incorporation of federal theology was not thoughtless at all but ratherintegralto hisefforts at overcoming nature/grace dualism. Ill say more about that in the next answer.

At any rate, I am gratified that at least two contemporary (and respected) Bavinck scholars haveindicated, after reading the book, Why didnt I see that before? When Bavinck says grace

restores and perfects nature, the structural backdrop is his distinction between the covenantsof works and grace. Restores, for Bavinck, simply means recovering thestatus integritatis,

what Adam lost, and perfects means obtaining what Adam stood to gain: thestatus gloriae,

or eschatological beatitude. Grace restores and perfects nature is not, as has been universallyassumed in Bavinck scholarship, a statement oftrinitarian theology (though that is obviously

involved); it is a statement of Reformed covenanttheology. Simply put: Bavincks signature

thesis, Grace restores and perfects nature isnt operable without the covenant theology

underlying it. I put it in (perhaps) my most provocative formulation: [U]sing grace restores andperfects nature without appreciating or even denying the covenant theology on which it rests is

like enjoying the utility of a beautiful suspension bridge while thinking that architecturalengineering is an unimportant, misguided, or even dangerous discipline (p.107).

LO: The doctrine of the covenant of works is a tough sell in todays theological market. As

you point out, even Reformed theologians who do not follow Barths repudiation of

classical Reformed federal theology still criticize and/or reformulate the doctrine. Related

to this, it was not clear to me to what extent you intended your study of Bavincks thought

to be a prod for contemporary dogmatic reflection. Do you think that Bavincks

formulation of covenant theology has something valuable to offer to contemporary

Reformed dogmatics, or should it be viewed more like a relic?

BM: I certainly do intend my study to contribute to contemporary dogmatic reflection. In thebook I do not (with the exception of a footnote or three) do any such direct correlation, but I did

self-consciously have an eye toward contemporary application. In Jonathan Kings review in

Themelios he ended by pointing out some of the ways my thesis opens up areas for furtherreflection, and I am gratified that he did, for that was exactly my hope.

As for the covenant of works as an historical relic, the term itself is, I think, one of the worst

historical travesties of dogmatic nomenclature. And much of the antipathy is caused, as I
http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bavhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bav


7/10

document in Chapter 2, by the term itself, not necessarily the doctrinal content. Bavinck, while

well-aware that the doctrine had fallen on hard times, considered himself part of a cadre of

scholars devoted to recovering the covenant of works for modern times (alongside Kuyper, Vos,and Warfield). That project obviously got left in the dust due to Barths sweeping influence in

the twentieth century.

I am suggesting, along with Herman Bavinck, that the abandonment of federal theology (already

evident in his day) is too hasty. The doctrine, rightly understood, does tremendous service inarticulating and preserving the basic Augustinian distinction between posse non peccare and non

posse peccare, creation and re-creation, Eden and Paradise, the state of integrity and state of

glory, or, as I put it, the Once Upon a Time and the Lived Happily Ever After. In Bavinckstheology, at least, it is this doctrine more than any other that organically ties together nature and

grace and does not allow grace/re-creation to swallow up, replace, or compete with

nature/creation. This is because the covenant of works uniquely provides an eschatology alreadyin the Garden to which Christs work of redemption answers. Loose the tie that binds these

two states together, and an uneasy nature/grace dualism inevitably emerges. And Bavinck is

simply stellar in demonstrating this vis-a-vis Pelagianism, Anabaptism, Lutheranism, RomanCatholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and it doesnt take too much speculation to apply it to more

recent Barthian triumph of grace views, certain forms of Two Kingdoms theology, more

triumphalist versions of Neo-Calvinism, and Emergent theology.

That rightly understood is important, however. Many zealous defenders of the doctrine aredefending a caricature, and the same misunderstanding holds for its detractors. I think, for

example, in the North American context the Kline/Murray debate (and the very-much-related

debate between Two Kingdoms Theology and Neo-Calvinism) there is significant confusion on

both sides about what the covenant of works is designed to do theologically. To Berkouwersears (and Murrays) it sounded like a means of defending a strictly graceless Pelagian

works/merit scheme in creation, and I confess it (sadly) sounds that way coming from the pens(keyboards!) of some of its champions even today. That certainly wasnt Bavincks intention inappropriating the doctrine, and as long as the misunderstanding persists the true value of the

doctrine will be obscure. Hopefully my book can help clear up at least some of the mess.

So, yes: Bavincks formulation of covenant theology is extremely relevant in the contemporary

theological world. The fact that many of our debates still hinge on how to relate nature and grace(e.g., the relationship between Christianity and culture), there has never been a better time to

become acquainted with a theologian who so skillfully negotiated these issues. Those who reject

the covenant of works still have to find some theological way to preserve the basically anti-gnostic, Augustinian impulse to distinguish and yet organically relate nature and grace, creation

and re-creation, and they do so in various (to my mind, less-than-successful) ways. I think going

back to Bavincks covenant theology is far from a dead-end. It may just be a way forward fromcurrent theological confusion. But in the process a name-change from covenant of works to

something better might be in order! Im open to suggestions.

LO: I see that you currently serve as Senior Scholar of Public Theology for the Center for

Cultural Leadership. What sort of work to you do for the Center? And in what ways has

Bavincks theology influenced your thinking about public theology?
http://www.christianculture.com/http://www.christianculture.com/http://www.christianculture.com/http://www.christianculture.com/


8/10

BM: My work with the Center For Cultural Leadership currently involves a number of writing

projects (stay tuned) and speaking engagements from time to time, almost all of which deal with

properly relating Christianity and culture, which is just a more specific instance of thenature/grace question. Thus, it is very much an outflow of my work in Bavincks theology.

Although neo-Calvinism as such has had its ups and downs, I remain committed to its basic idea

that Christianity and culture cannot be divorced from each other. As Bavinck put it, the kingdomis both a pearl and a leaven. Theology must speak, and it must speak out loud and in public.

Bavinck thought secularism was on its last legs in his dayalas, it tenaciously clings to life a

hundred years later. I am somewhat heartened that non-Christian intellectuals are more and more

seeing it as untenable (though their solutions usually leave much to be desired, e.g., seephilosopher Simon Critchleys very recentFaith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political

Theology), but there is much work remaining in convincing the Western world that emancipation

from its parents (Christian theism) was not a particularly good idea. And that sort of convincingis what is entailed in being a public theologian.

LO: Whats this I hear about your moonlighting as a musician and singer/songwriter?Where can we find out more about your music?

BM: I have been a guitarist and songwriter for over twenty years. Ive always said that if I

wasnt a theologian, Id have to pursue rock star. Thankfully, Ive still found extra-curricularways of pursuing music. I have a solo album available on iTunes, although Im noticing that it is

now becoming very dated! Ive got plenty of material for a follow-up album, and I hope to get it

done sometime soon. Ive got a music page on my website for those interests.

Additionally, I am an integral member of Captive Thought, a worship band with my dear friends,

Trudy Poirier and Kerry Skiles, along with a revolving cast of other talented musicians. Trudy is

an incredibly gifted pianist and songwriter, and her work includes some original lyricalcomposition, but mostly updating the music to classic hymns and Psalms. We usually travel andperform at least one conference a year, which is always a highlight for me. If youre interested in

new worship music, please check outPear Tree Music or direct your churchs music director

there! We have a brand-new album set for release just next month. So, as they say, stay tuned!

Related elsewhere

Brian Mattsonsblog and Twitter.

Restored to Our Destiny atBrill USA,Google Books, and WorldCat.

Jonathan Kings review ofRestored to Our Destiny.

Share this:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beckon-me/id204089838?i=204089850http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beckon-me/id204089838?i=204089850http://www.drbrianmattson.com/music/http://www.peartreemusic.com/http://www.peartreemusic.com/http://www.drbrianmattson.com/http://twitter.com/#!/BrianGMattsonhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://books.google.com/books?id=hEUU_gAACAAJ&dq=Restored+to+Our+Destiny&ei=NMmuT8HlBZPCMrmhwKkChttp://books.google.com/books?id=hEUU_gAACAAJ&dq=Restored+to+Our+Destiny&ei=NMmuT8HlBZPCMrmhwKkChttp://www.worldcat.org/title/restored-to-our-destiny-eschatology-the-image-of-god-in-herman-bavincks-reformed-dogmatics/oclc/748290805http://www.worldcat.org/title/restored-to-our-destiny-eschatology-the-image-of-god-in-herman-bavincks-reformed-dogmatics/oclc/748290805http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bavhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bavhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bavhttp://itunes.apple.com/us/album/beckon-me/id204089838?i=204089850http://www.drbrianmattson.com/music/http://www.peartreemusic.com/http://www.drbrianmattson.com/http://twitter.com/#!/BrianGMattsonhttp://www.brillusa.com/restored-our-destinyhttp://books.google.com/books?id=hEUU_gAACAAJ&dq=Restored+to+Our+Destiny&ei=NMmuT8HlBZPCMrmhwKkChttp://www.worldcat.org/title/restored-to-our-destiny-eschatology-the-image-of-god-in-herman-bavincks-reformed-dogmatics/oclc/748290805http://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bavhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/publications/themelios/review/restored_to_our_destiny_eschatology_and_the_image_of_god_in_herman_bav


9/10

This entry was posted in Bavinck Society,Herman Bavinck,Newsand taggedanthropology,

covenant theology,eschatology,federal theology, imago Dei,neo-Calvinism,public theology,Reformed on 15 May 2012.

Post navigation

Paris Neo-Calvinism Conference and Call for PapersExtended registration deadline for Parisneo-Calvinism conference

RSS E-Mail

Search for:

Recent Posts

Preview ofThe Bavinck Review 4 (2013)

Upcoming Dissertation: A Theology of Learning

John Bolts Dissertation on Bavincks Two Essays on theImitatio Christi

Announcing The J. H. Bavinck Reader

Trinity and Organism reviewed on Reformed Media Review

Recent Comments

Laurence ODonnell on Announcing The J. H. Bavinck Reader

Jim West on Announcing The J. H. Bavinck Reader

Laurence O'Donnell on Call for Papers for the 2011 Bavinck Conference

Tim Proudlove on Call for Papers for the 2011 Bavinck Conference

Laurence O'Donnell on Upcoming Dissertation

Archives

July 2013

June 2013

May 2013

April 2013

November 2012
http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/bavinck-society/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/bavinck-society/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/herman-bavinck/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/news/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/news/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/anthropology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/anthropology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/covenant-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/covenant-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/eschatology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/federal-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/federal-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/imago-dei/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/imago-dei/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/neo-calvinism/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/public-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/reformed/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/interview-with-brian-mattson-on-restored-to-our-destiny/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/03/paris-neo-calvinism-conference-and-call-for-papers/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/extended-registration-deadline-for-paris-neo-calvinism-conference/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/extended-registration-deadline-for-paris-neo-calvinism-conference/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/extended-registration-deadline-for-paris-neo-calvinism-conference/http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheBavinckInstitutehttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheBavinckInstitutehttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheBavinckInstitutehttp://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/preview-of-the-bavinck-review-4-2013/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/preview-of-the-bavinck-review-4-2013/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/preview-of-the-bavinck-review-4-2013/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/upcoming-dissertation-a-theology-of-learning/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/john-bolts-dissertation-on-bavincks-two-essays-on-the-imitatio-christi/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/john-bolts-dissertation-on-bavincks-two-essays-on-the-imitatio-christi/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/john-bolts-dissertation-on-bavincks-two-essays-on-the-imitatio-christi/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/trinity-and-organism-reviewed-on-reformed-media-review/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/trinity-and-organism-reviewed-on-reformed-media-review/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/trinity-and-organism-reviewed-on-reformed-media-review/http://dedeo.org/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-27http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-27http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-27http://www.facebook.com/drjewesthttp://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-26http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-26http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-26http://inthylight.wordpress.com/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/call-for-papers-for-the-2011-bavinck-conference/#comment-17http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/call-for-papers-for-the-2011-bavinck-conference/#comment-16http://inthylight.wordpress.com/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/10/upcoming-dissertation/#comment-9http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/11/http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheBavinckInstitutehttp://feeds.feedburner.com/TheBavinckInstitutehttp://bavinckinstitute.org/category/bavinck-society/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/herman-bavinck/http://bavinckinstitute.org/category/news/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/anthropology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/covenant-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/eschatology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/federal-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/imago-dei/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/neo-calvinism/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/public-theology/http://bavinckinstitute.org/tag/reformed/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/interview-with-brian-mattson-on-restored-to-our-destiny/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/03/paris-neo-calvinism-conference-and-call-for-papers/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/extended-registration-deadline-for-paris-neo-calvinism-conference/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/extended-registration-deadline-for-paris-neo-calvinism-conference/http://feeds.feedburner.com/TheBavinckInstitutehttp://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheBavinckInstitutehttp://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/preview-of-the-bavinck-review-4-2013/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/upcoming-dissertation-a-theology-of-learning/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/john-bolts-dissertation-on-bavincks-two-essays-on-the-imitatio-christi/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/trinity-and-organism-reviewed-on-reformed-media-review/http://dedeo.org/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-27http://www.facebook.com/drjewesthttp://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/announcing-the-j-h-bavinck-reader/#comment-26http://inthylight.wordpress.com/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/call-for-papers-for-the-2011-bavinck-conference/#comment-17http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/call-for-papers-for-the-2011-bavinck-conference/#comment-16http://inthylight.wordpress.com/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/10/upcoming-dissertation/#comment-9http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/07/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2013/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/11/


10/10

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

June 2012

May 2012

March 2012

December 2011

November 2011

September 2011

August 2011

July 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

October 2010

September 2010

June 2010

May 2010

April 2010

September 2009

June 2009

April 2009

Copyright 2013 The Bavinck Institute at Calvin Theological Seminary
http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/10/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/08/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/03/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/12/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/11/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/08/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/07/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/03/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/02/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/12/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/10/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/10/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/08/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2012/03/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/12/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/11/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/08/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/07/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/03/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/02/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2011/01/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/12/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/10/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/05/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2010/04/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/09/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/06/http://bavinckinstitute.org/2009/04/

Documents

Restored to Our Destiny_The Bavinck Institute