Theology of the Glands

sinful vision

Herman Bavinck’s nineteenth-century Reformed Dogmatics is lucidly written and solidly biblical. In this discussion of biblical authority, he takes a step back and reflects upon the reasons why people sometimes critique the Bible. In the following quote, Bavnick explores the moral reasons behind this resistance, what I am calling “theology of the glands.” Simply put, at the heart of every objection to the gospel is the sinful will.

Many and very serious objections are raised against this view of the inspiration of Scripture. They derive from the historical criticism that questions the authenticity and credibility of many biblical books. The challenge comes from the mutual contradictions that occur time after time in Scripture; from the manner in which OT texts are cited and interpreted in the NT; and it comes from the secular history with which the narratives of Scripture can often not be harmonized. . ..1 It is vain to ignore these objections and to act as if they don’t exist. Still, we must first of all call attention to the ethical battle, which at all times has been carried on against Scripture. If Scripture is the word of God, that battle is not accidental but necessary and completely understandable. If Scripture is the account of the revelation of God in Christ, it is bound to arouse the same opposition as Christ himself who came into the world for judgment (κρισις) and is “set for the falling and rising of many” [Luke 2:34]. He brings separation between light and darkness and reveals the thoughts of many hearts. . . By itself, therefore, it need not surprise us in the least that Scripture has at all times encountered contradiction and opposition. Christ bore a cross, and the servant [Scripture] is not greater than its master. Scripture is the handmaiden of Christ. It shares in his defamation and arouses the hostility of sinful humanity. . . The battle against the Bible is, in the first place, a revelation of the hostility of the human heart.2

Footnotes:

1 Bavinck is not arguing that there are errors; rather, he is arguing that there are many apparent difficulties. For further explanation, see Herman Bavinck, Prolegomena, in Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 447-448.

2 Ibid., 439-440.

Share this article on…

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
More Articles

Our Basic Need

In her first novel, Wise Blood, Flannery O’Connor says of her character Hazel Motes that “there was a deep, black, wordless conviction in him that

Read More »

Models of the Church

When I was in seminary, Professor Rick Lints made a memorable statement. After lecturing on the Reformation’s conception of salvation, he asserted that “This generation

Read More »

The Crux of Gospel Preaching

The acclaimed Italian operatic tenor Luciano Pavarotti was a nervous wreck before every performance. Perhaps this would be the day that he would finally fail?

Read More »