Herman Bavinck, 2024. Biblical and Religious Psychology. Translated by Herman Hanko. Edited by Gregory Parker Jr. Jenison, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association.
Biblical and Religious Psychology is a recent English translation of Herman Bavinck’s Bijbelsche en Religieuze Psychologie (1920), translated primarily by Herman Hanko with the help of Annemarieke Ryskamp and Gregory Parker Jr., with the latter also editing the volume.
The book is a compilation of essays that Bavinck wrote for a Christian education journal from 1912 to 1920, the year before his death, when it was published as a single volume. Overall, it presents the ideas Bavinck wanted to put into the hands of parents and educators about how Christianity impacts human psychology. He does this from two angles that make up the two main sections of the volume: “Biblical Psychology” and “Religious Psychology.”
The first section, Biblical Psychology, contains eight chapters and focuses on how Scripture explains the general, non-salvific aspect of our human nature. Bavinck submits that Scripture is more than just a path to salvation when he asks, “Is Scripture alone a light on the path to heaven, and is it in no respect a lamp for our feet as we walk in the paths of this earth?” (8). He argues that Scripture contains a biblical psychology because its principles apply to all people of every “sex, language, nation, and culture” (13) and that this psychology is of “excellent theoretical and practical value” (75). However, it is limited in scope and is “not suitable for, nor intended to be, a textbook or a scientific handbook” (16). Secular psychology, therefore, because of common grace, may offer some good insights into human nature.
In setting the historical context, Bavinck observes that psychology was relatively new as a science. It branched out from two secular starting points: First from Wilhelm Wundt, who started the first psychology laboratory in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, and founded the experimental psychology journal, Philosophical Studies, in 1881; second from the clinical psychology of Sigmund Freud from Vienna, Austria, whose ideas were first articulated widely via the publication of his Five Lectures on Psycho-Analysis in 1909. When Bavinck wrote these essays, both branches were in full swing providing a “scientific psychology that is constructed by man himself from the investigation of human nature by itself” (6).
Bavinck puts this new science in the proper context. He writes that psychology is ultimately “no matter how empirically studied … [still] a philosophical science” (16). In this framework Holy Scripture “yields a threefold benefit” (16) for psychology by 1) teaching us the origin, essence, and destiny of man, coming from the prophets and apostles as opposed to the view of man put forward by non-Christian Greek (Plato and Aristotle) and European (Kant, Herbart, and Wundt) philosophers; 2) introducing us to man’s “soul-life” describing, by God’s living and active word, what changes are produced in us by sin and grace; and 3) showing us in non-abstract ways what life is like through a gallery of personal narratives culminating in the example of Christ who is “the only one among men, full of grace and truth” (16).
After laying down this roadmap in the first chapter, Bavinck expounds these benefits in the subsequent six chapters and summarizes them in this first section’s last chapter. Bavinck begins by articulating the biblical foundation that humans are created in the image of God with both a material body and a spiritual soul, neither essence pre-existing the other (20), and that “the scriptures stand in flat opposition to materialism on the one hand and to spiritualism on the other” (21) but that “man forms an organic unity” (20).
The next four chapters present nuanced discussions about our human essences of body, soul, and spirit and bring out helpful biblical definitions of what each is and is not. He even makes a biblical argument for animals having a type of soul; however, he clarifies that the human soul is distinct from that of an animal as it is the origin of all “individual existence and life” comprised of all our affections, mental states, wishes and desires (37). It is this human soul that is the source of our psychology. As John Bolt eloquently states in his introduction to this volume,
The term “psychology” is Bavinck’s shorthand for the entire apparatus of the human capacity for knowing and coming to know. It includes human consciousness, self-consciousness, and human capacities for perceiving, knowing, willing, and feeling. It includes our sensory perception of the external world, the representations we form of that world in our mind, the emotions that are aroused in us by it, and the way in which our wills are exercised in the choices we make. (xxiv)
Bavinck finishes the first section by focusing on many of these aspects which he calls the various faculties of the soul. He highlights biblical passages that address our inner “psychical life” of our ideas, affections, feelings, desires, and will being correlated to the functioning of our inner most parts like the heart, kidneys and bowels (68). To summarize the first section, Bavinck argues that Holy Scripture presents a holistic human anthropology that explains our human origin, essence and destiny, giving us an understanding of what he calls biblical psychology.
In the book’s second section, Religious Psychology, Bavinck says in the introductory chapter that he plans to move beyond the more abstract ideas he presented in the first section and look at the main emphasis and teachings of Scripture as it addresses the relationship between man and his creator God. Having established the biblical psychology of what man is, he now examines the religious psychology of “what man was originally like … the influence that sin exercised on the life of the soul … and… the transformation that the word and Spirit of Christ brings about in the heart and the life of man” (89). Bavinck accomplishes this new focus in the last nine chapters of the book.
Chapter 2 lays the groundwork for the relationship between God and man by discussing how Scripture defines man as made in the image of God which is his essence. He argues that the Reformation abolished platonic dualism by reemphasizing the biblical declaration that “the spirit, but also matter has a divine origin. Not only the soul, but also the body is holy” (94).
In chapters 3 and 4 Bavinck discusses how Scripture describes the origin of sin and its continued influence “on the soul-life of man.” First, he outlines how Scripture elucidates the doctrine of sin, contrasting a fundamental difference between the divine perspective (110)—sin was and is a volitional act by free humans choosing to disobey God’s law—and the perspectives of human philosophy that excuse sin as merely a necessary and natural process (100). Bavinck describes the moment when sin enters creation by the Fall of Adam and Eve and highlights the human will and desire that underlies the act, and addresses the psychological consequences of nakedness, guilt and shame that follow. He claims that the transgression of God’s law is both moral and religious because the law, as explicitly given to Israel, directs man how to behave toward God and other humans respectively, which none can accomplish. Bavinck states that the “law was not given to Israel to acquire eternal life by its observance, but to walk [with their redeemer] as a covenant people according to it as a rule of gratitude” (108). In chapter 4 he highlights and critiques three human non-biblical theories that try to explain sin: ignorance and error of intellect (early Greeks and Romans), free choice of the will that can choose to sin or not (Pelagian), and animalistic sensuality as seen in the writings of Plato, the Gnostics, and Darwin. In the remainder of the chapter, he contrasts these theories with the psychological side of the biblical doctrine of sin as it addresses sin’s influence upon human intellect, will, and affection.
In the next three chapters, Bavinck focuses on the all-encompassing influence of sin in humans. In chapters 5 and 6 he addresses the heredity of sin, a quality that belongs to all people. He argues that every person is born in a condition of sin, rather than acquiring it as explained by the biblical doctrine of original sin (133). He then embellishes this in chapter 7 where he discusses “the defects of children” explaining that biblical ethical principles provide a more balanced understanding of the good and sin seen in children, countering the cultural pendulum that swings between the extremes that all children are naturally good and innocent (Rousseau) or that they are inclined to all evil and must be bridled. He addresses the reality of individual differences in sinful behavior—stemming from both heredity and bad environmental influences (167) and the need for godly instruction in righteousness. He ends the chapter with an uplifting discussion of biblical sexual education for children, including an excellent critique of Freud’s view of psychosexual development that conflates good sensual pleasures such as an infant feeding at its mother’s breast with an erotic element that comes from Freud’s distorted understanding of love (173).
The last three chapters emphasize the hope that Scripture offers as the antidote to the degenerative power of sin. Chapter 8 highlights the “regenerative, restorative, and renewing powers [that] are not only present in the human realm but can also be found throughout nature” (179). It is here that Bavinck offers his defense of the doctrine of common grace contrasting Reformed theology with that of Luther and Rome. He argues that according to the Reformed understanding, Scripture teaches there are two elements, broad and narrow, of the image of God in man that sin has corrupted, but not entirely. In the narrow sense, man’s sin has resulted in the total loss of the “spiritual qualities of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness [which can] only be regained by union with Christ” (191). However, in a broad sense, common grace upholds “small remnants” (191) of the image of God against unrighteousness—everywhere in creation as God restrains the effects of sin. God has not abandoned the world and left it to total decay. After sin, by God’s common grace, all men did not devolve into animals but “remained rational-moral beings” (191). The ebb and flow of man’s moral history shows the role of common grace in restraining destructive forces through God’s patience, forbearance, and kindness (191).
Chapter 9 expounds in more detail the contrast between God’s “particular grace that he grants to the church in Christ” (i.e., salvation) (201), and “general grace that he bestows on all his creatures day by day … He causes the sun to rise of the evil and the good…his mercy is over all his works” (201). He also presents a helpful discussion of God’s initiative to call a Christian by the gospel which transforms human guilt, shame, anxiety, and fear into faith and trust (199).
The final chapter is one of application to the religious education of children in particular. Bavinck claims that religion is inherent to human nature, setting us apart from animals. As such, parents should provide religious and moral education to their children. Bavinck argues this religious formation which is an “indispensable blessing” (218) granted only from God, ought to be holistic, influencing “every aspect: mind and heart, intellect and will, soul and body” (218). It is in this context that Bavinck may lead his reader into the most controversial aspect of the book as he addresses children as members of the covenant. Although not fully embracing Kuyper’s view of presumptive regeneration, Bavinck comes close by highlighting three privileges and duties of Christian parents and children, that taken together lean toward Kuyper’s view which will raise red flags for some as it seems close to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Bavinck states that the covenant of grace first “grants parents and educators…the obligation to consider and treat the children they are raising as Christian children” (220); second, “provides strong support in combating the evil that resides in the thoughts and desires of children’s hearts” (221); and third, “parents may proceed…that their children… partake in the promises of [the] covenant [of grace] until it is proven otherwise through their profession and conduct” (221).
Defining the covenant of grace and how it relates to election/salvation is the crucial issue here. Different traditions within the Reformed theological community have often argued about the distinction “between what Paul calls the children of the flesh and the children of the promise” (220). Three views offer different interpretations. One view, sometimes associated with Kuyper and long influential in some Reformed and Presbyterian traditions (e.g., Schenck [1940] 2003) identifies the children of believers as members of the covenant (promise) and presumes they are members of the elect of God by virtue of their family tie to at least one Christian parent. In light of this presumption, such children should be given the sign of the covenant (baptism) at birth. This comes from an isolated reading of 1 Corinthians 7:14 along with confessional expressions such as Article 17 from the Canons of Dordrecht and Question and Answer 74 of the Heidelberg Catechism. We could call this view “election by inheritance.” An opposing view, offered by most Baptists, reserves the sign of baptism only for those who have verbally and credibly professed faith in Christ. On account of their profession such are viewed as elect members of the covenant that should be baptized. We could call this view “election by profession.” Both of these opposing views associate membership in the covenant directly with the elect people of God.
In a third view, the covenant is related but not so closely identified with election. This comes from the Westminster Standards that interprets Scripture as making a distinction between the visible and invisible church (see Romans 9:6) such that all who are baptized are members of the visible church, but regeneration comes only to those in the invisible church who are admitted by regeneration or baptism by the Holy Spirit. In other words, the covenant is the people of God but not all in the covenant are elect and saved. We could call this view “election by sovereign decree.” As one commentator on the Westminster Shorter Catechism, G. I. Williamson, writes, “…a person [may] receive the outward sign and never receive the inward grace” (2003, 302). Similarly, commenting on the Heidelberg Catechism he writes, “It is just not true that everyone who is baptized becomes a genuine Christian” (Williamson 1993, 121). He bases this view on both Old and New Testament examples showing that the sign of the covenant does not equate to membership in the invisible church. Abraham was converted before he received the sign of the covenant (circumcision) and while both brothers Jacob and Esau were circumcised only one was elect. In the New Testament, Judas Iscariot who was also circumcised was clearly not regenerated. The same can be said regarding baptism as the sign of the covenant. Simon Magus whose profession of faith and baptism are documented in Acts 8 was clearly not regenerate and despite being baptized was excluded from the elect people of God.
In contrast with Bavinck’s presentation, the third view is more nuanced about what membership in the covenant means: a privileged status (being raised in the instruction and admonition of the Lord) but not a guarantee of election. In Dutch Reformed circles a version of this view is argued by Herman Hoeksema (Hoeksema 1997, 100) and David Engelsma (Engelsma 2005, 16).
Although Bavinck elaborates that no regeneration is possible without God’s action, before “the planting of Paul and the watering of Apollos” (221), he does say that “regeneration is closely connected to Christian upbringing” (221), suggesting he is in line with or at least sympathetic to Kuyper’s idea of presumptive regeneration.
Bavinck closes the chapter and section with encouragement to parents and educators to teach children and adolescents with a developmentally and spiritually appropriate curriculum that will “be embraced not only by [the pupil’s] intellect but primarily by the heart” (226). This will be blessed by God to form men and women “who are perfectly equipped for all good works in the family, church, society, and state” (226).
To summarize the second section, Bavinck addresses the human aspects of general and special revelation. He explains how God works his providence in his creatures by way of common grace to all those made in the image of God, and works his particular grace of salvation through the covenant of grace given to those experiencing the Holy Spirit’s regenerative power in Christ Jesus.
Overall, this work, now accessible in English, will be a great service to both the psychology community and the Reformed theology community. Bavinck’s presentation of a holistic biblical human anthropology adds depth to the discussion of how to integrate ideas of the Christian faith into psychology, particularly in the areas of applied theology, as well as academic, philosophical, and educational psychology.
On a side note, after reading the foreword, preface, and introduction by Hanko, Parker, and Bolt, respectively, I am confident this volume will edify any who read it given the careful team effort that produced this accessible path into Bavinck’s writing on the discipline of psychology. As a Presbyterian who lived and worshipped God for eight years in a Dutch community and has witnessed much divisive doctrinal tensions within both the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed communities, it is uplifting to see this collaborative effort involving leaders from both the Protestant Reformed (Hanko) and Christian Reformed (Bolt) churches. Despite the contention about the term “common grace” which is articulated and defended by Bavinck in the second section, which Hanko highlights he does not endorse, Hanko states, “Nevertheless, I consider the material to be of such interest and help, especially to those who are engaged in the work of teaching covenant children, that a translation and publication of it is worthwhile” (xi). Such humility is refreshing.