Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983)
Article: Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?
Author: Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

---

WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983) p. 219

Old Amsterdam and Inerrancy?*

Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.

[Note: The footnotes in the electronic text begin with #1, but the printed version is continued from a previous article, and the actual footnotes are in parenthesis following.]

Originally conceived as a footnote to John Woodbridge’s review of The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim,1 (57) this article continued to grow. In the meantime Woodbridge’s excellent work has been expanded into a book,2 (58) but still without reference to the views of Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck. Having examined Kuyper’s position in some detail, we now turn to that of his younger colleague.

III. Bavinck

Rogers and McKim present the views of Kuyper and Bavinck as a single, homogenous position.3 (59) This is basically true of Berkouwer, too, with whom they see themselves as standing, in the line of Kuyper and Bavinck.4 (60) Certainly along broad historical lines we may anticipate at least basic agreement between them on the doctrine of Scripture. At the same time, however, the one ought not simply to be left in the shadow of the other. Particularly, in what follows here we will have to guard against merely documenting in Bavinck conclusions already reached about Kuyper or otherwise obscuring Bavinck’s position in its own right. What are his integral concerns and distinctive emphases?

The relationship in general between Kuyper and Bavinck is a

* Continued from WTJ 44 (1982) 250–89.

WTJ 45:2 (Fall 1983) p. 220

question worth touching on here, if only in passing, At the close of a lengthy assessment R. H. Bremmer writes:

Our conclusion at the end of this entire chapter can be that Bavinck did not allow his personal controversies with Kuyper to prevail over his public position with respect to Kuyper’s writings. In his Dogmatics he aspired to a conscious synthesis with respect to Kuyper’s works; this, however, did not exclude corrections on specific points here and there.5 (61)

In the course of an overall appraisal Jan Veenhof observes:

There is no reason to deny that on the cardinal points an important material agreement exists, although the elaboration Kuyper gives of some themes is more romantic and speculative than that of Bavinck. On the other hand the presence of nuances and differences may not be denied. In my opinion one will have to be on guard against...

visitor : : uid: ()