Journal: Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Volume: JIRBS 05:1 (NA 2018)
Article: Divine Sonship in the Theology of B. B. Warfield and Herman Bavinck and its Theological Implications
Author: Graham J. Shearer

JIRBS 5 (2018) p. 135

Divine Sonship in the Theology of B. B. Warfield and Herman Bavinck and its Theological Implications

Graham J. Shearer*

* Graham J. Shearer is Associate Pastor of East London Tabernacle Baptist Church in Mile End, London, UK.

In the first volume of his Reformed Dogmatics, Geerhardus Vos writes, “What must be observed about the names Father and Son? That from them one derives at times too much and at other times too little.”1 It is striking that Vos’s position is almost perfectly equidistant between his two great contemporaries, B. B. Warfield and Herman Bavinck, in his treatment of the divine relations.2 Against Warfield, Vos affirms the reality of eternal generation and against Bavinck he denies that this generation involves the communication of being from the Father to the Son. Bavinck and Warfield, though both giants of fin de siècle3 Reformed theology, had significantly different formulations of trinitarian theology, differences that hitherto have been unexplored.4

JIRBS 5 (2018) p. 136

This article has two objectives in view. The first is to show that a doctrine of trinitarian relations, particularly that of eternal generation, is not merely an abstract addendum to the living body of truth revealed in Scripture but shapes our understanding of the central doctrines such as creation, the incarnation, and revelation. We shall see, therefore, how Warfield and Bavinck’s differences on eternal generation shaped the rest of their doctrinal framework, and their understanding of who the God revealed in the Scriptures really is.

The second aim is to use Warfield and Bavinck as a lens through which to view an important dialectic within Reformed theology; how the exegesis of Scripture relates to the metaphysical realties described in the creeds. Thus, a comparison between Warfield and Bavinck reveals critical differences between not only their understanding of God’s triune nature but also their theological method. While there is a significant amount of literature comparing Warfield and Princeton with Bavinck and Amsterdam, the focus of almost all of it has been on the question of apologetics in relation to theological prolegomena and how theology is to be epistemologically grounded.5 Very little

JIRBS 5 (2018) p. 137

attention, though, has been given to the substantial differences between Warfield and Bavinck’s doctrinal positi...