The Tulip Driven Life

Today I would like to briefly cover both Lutheran and Reformed Dogmatics. I will mainly emphasize Reformed Dogmatics.  Here is the summary of Bavinck's section on Lutheran Dogmatics:  Martin Luther was not really the first Lutheran dogmatician; that honor belongs to Philipp Melanchthon and his Loci Communes (1521). After decades of debate about the Lord’s Supper, the law, and Christ’s descent into hell, among other things, Lutheran orthodoxy achieved its definitive form in the Formula of Concord (1577–80). The seventeenth century witnessed a refinement of Lutheran scholasticism as well as a reaction to its objectivism. In the eighteenth century the human subject asserted itself in different forms. Pietism and rationalism, each in its own way, undermined the authority of Lutheran orthodoxy by shifting the center of gravity to the human subject. The Enlightenment enthroned autonomous reason to a place of dominance over the objective truth of Scripture. Kant’s critique of re

The Formation of Dogma: East and West  I am going to combine the next two chapters into one post. The first chapter is the title above. The reason I am doing this is because, while the formation and history of dogma is interesting, Bavinck goes into many issues and people that aren't very familiar. I am mostly going to quote Bavinck below and add a few comments here and there. I have noticed at the beginning of each chapter there is a several paragraphs in a smaller, indented font. It is also italicized. I am not sure if this is a summary of what Bavinck said or an insertion by the editor. Regardless, I am going to reproduce that in its entirety for chapter 3, it is very helpful.  Dogmatics arises from reflection on the truth of Scripture. This is not the task of individuals but the whole church. Contra Harnack, dogma is not the product of Hellenization and thus one grand error. Harnack simply has a different view than the historic church does of the essence of Christi

The Search for a Scientific, Objective Theology According to Troeltsch, the unity that used to exist between religion (Christianity) and science has been definitely broken up since the rise of eighteenth-century rationalism. This breakup was caused by the change that occurred both in the view of science and in that of religion. Science laid aside all apriorism, became positive, and banished metaphysics. Today it exists solely as mathematical-mechanical, natural science and as the critical-comparative study of history. In both respects it is opposed to the old view of religion and theology. And so the latter gradually changed in the sense that theologians no longer want anything to do with an external authority, as much as possible reduce or abandon the supernatural elements—like prophecy, miracle, and inspiration—that occur in authority-based religion, fully accept the historical criticism of Scripture, and regard dogmas purely as expressions of personal faith. Accordingly, there