Ultimately, it is only when scientific investigation is directed and grounded upon Christian presuppositions that it is capable of achieving what it was designed by God to achieve. In contrast to secular science, Christian science always ends in doxology, for the God who gave us the means to study the world is the one to whom all glory rightly belongs. While Christianity and Science is certainly not a book for all, it is an excellent resource for those with a scholarly bent. I suspect its enduring significance will be manifest when debates concerning the relationship between science and Christianity are reignited in years to come.

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in the works of Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). Bavinck scholars in the likes of James Eglinton, Cameron Clausing, Nathaniel Sutanto, and Greg Parker have made significant contributions to the field, not only in their analysis of Bavinck’s theology, but also in providing contemporary translations of his works. Christianity and Scienceis one such translation, which we can be thankful to Sutanto, Eglinton and Brock for producing! I think the book is worth purchasing if only to read the 39 page ‘Editor’s Introduction’ which summarises Bavinck’s work and underscores its relevance for today.
At its heart, Christianity and Scienceshows the Christian foundations that lay beneath the study of science. Bavinck insists why they are necessary if the discipline of science is to flourish the way God intended it to. Bavinck intendedChristianity and Scienceto be read as a companion to Christian Worldview, which he wrote as a biblical response to modernity and the challenges facing believers at the turn of the 20th century (A new translation of this work was published by the aforementioned scholars in 2019!). Though I cannot comment on the quality of translation itself given my inability to read Dutch, the subject matter of Christianity and Scienceis as relevant today as when it was first penned.
The central thesis of Christianity and Scienceis that Christians have in Jesus Christ an anchor not only for salvation, but also truth itself. Bavinck writes: “The apostles of Jesus planted the banner of truth in that world of unbelief and superstition. After all, the Christian religion is not merely the religion of grace. It is also the religion of truth.” (p. 50)
By implication, science is not to be seen as a secular discipline to be undertaken in separation from theology. Rather, it is only because we bear the image of a loving God that we have the capacity to study the world using scientific methods. Yet, we live in a time when many continue to insist that faith and science are separate entities, with even many Christians treating them in such a way. Bavinck insists that this must not be so.
Science versus Christianity?
Today it is almost assumed that science and Christianity are in conflict. Many believe that science deals with facts, whereas Christianity deals with fiction. Science deals with objectivity, while Christianity deals with subjectivity. Science presents evidence, whereas Christianity demands faith. Bavinck destroys these false dichotomies and gets to the heart of the issue. According to Bavinck, faith and reason must be understood as two sides of the same coin.
Bavinck wrote in the shadow of Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859), in a socio-religious climate which saw naturalistic ‘science’ as the emancipator of man. Nevertheless, it would have been helpful if Bavinck had presented a theological and philosophical critique of Darwinian Evolution and its incompatibility with the Biblical creation account. After all, this is often the crux of the science-Christianity debate. Nevertheless, the principles and presuppositions presented in Christianity and Sciencecan certainly be applied to the evolution/creation debate.
While Bavinck never uses the term ‘scientism,’ this philosophy is the bullseye of his work. Scientism is the notion that ‘science alone can render truth about the world and reality.’ Yet, as apologist Frank Turek aptly put it: “Science doesn’t say anything — scientists do.” Therefore, when conflicts between science and Christianity appear, our instinct should not be to throw aside Scripture in pursuit of ‘science.’ Rather, we should analyse the arguments through the lens of God’s Word, recognising the theological implications of the issue at hand.
While scientism does not have the same momentum it had during the heyday of Richard Dawkins, many still hold to its erroneous presuppositions. The post-Christian, postmodern society in which we find ourselves continues to bear marks of its faulty presuppositions. In many ways, Bavinck’s critiques of scientific positivism — the 19th century dogma which argued all knowledge can be gained apart from supernatural revelation —can be applied to scientism today.
All science is conducted through the lens of a worldview, and Bavinck is adamant to emphasise this. He writes:
As such, by its very nature, each religious confession lays claim on the entire world. If each religion is accompanied by a certain view of the world and humanity, of nature and history—which it always is—then through this it binds the whole of a person’s life and also, specifically, [his] science. The degree and extent to which science is bound to these religious convictions can differ, but the principle is always the same.
Read More
Related Posts:

The opening verses of John’s Gospel introduce to us the unspeakably glorious reality of God’s Triune being, and to its unfathomableness. Before all worlds existed, before anything was, God was! And staggeringly, he was a community, a fellowship: ‘and the Word was with (“face to face with”) God’! The Father was with the Son, and the Son was with the Father. And together they were with the Holy Spirit. 

What would you say is the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith? For many of us, the instinctive answer would be, ‘justification by faith alone, in Christ alone’. There is no doubt, or should be no doubt, that this is a biblical and evangelical fundamental. Didn’t Martin Luther describe justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, as ‘The article of a standing or falling church’! We surely understand what Luther is saying. Could anything be more important than knowing how God brings judgment-deserving sinners into a right and reconciled relationship with himself?
Equally surely, however, we cannot say that justification by faith alone is the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Faith. That honour rightly and surely belongs to the doctrine of the Trinity. God himself is the fundamental truth of the Christian Faith. He is Truth itself. He is the Creator, Sustainer, Initiator and Sovereign Lord of all that is. God does not exist for us, we exist for him. Paul’s declaration in Romans 11:36 wonderfully makes the point: ‘For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.’
The pre-eminence of God’s Triune being is heralded in a number of ways in the Scriptures. In Genesis l we see the Triune God in creation: God, his Word, and his Spirit, together bringing into being worlds and star systems out of nothing, and creating man and woman in their own image. Who we are is a personal and visual reminder to us every moment of our existence, of the priority of the Triune God. It is surely not without significance, to say no more, that God should disclose the Triunity of his being to us in the Bible’s opening chapter. All that is has its being from, and is a reflection of the Triune God. In the New Testament, we see the Triune God working in harmony to effect the salvation of sinners: The Father purposing, the Son saving and the Spirit applying (though all actively at work at every moment and at every phase of redemption).
Read More
Related Posts:

From the beginning of his New York ministry, Miller was not despised for his youth but instead proved an exemplary colleague. The local Reformed ministry included not only Miller’s pastoral colleagues at Collegiate, but also John M. Mason (Associate Reformed) as well as Reformed Dutch pastors John H. Livingston and William Linn. It was really a golden opportunity for Miller to serve the Lord with such experienced colleagues. He often spoke in other churches and delivered lectures before societies. Miller expressed his opposition to slavery and promoted gradual emancipation when he spoke to his fellow members of the New York Society Promoting the Manumission of Slaves in 1797.

Samuel was born Reformation Day, October 31, 1769, in Dover the eighth of nine children and the fourth son of John and Margaret (Millington) Miller. Margaret was the daughter of an English sea captain who abandoned the uncertainties of sailing the seven seas for living on the good earth as a planter in Maryland. John Miller was minister of the Presbyterian churches in Smyrna and Dover Delaware and the household lived on a hundred-acre farm. During the division of the Presbyterians into Old and New Sides, 1741-1758, he was a member of the Old Side Presbytery of New Castle. The Sides are not the same as the Old and New Schools. The Sides divided over interpretation and application of the Adopting Act of 1729 concerning subscription to the Westminster Confession. An associated issue was itinerant evangelists conducting revival meetings within presbyteries of which they were not members. The Old Side believed in full subscription to the Confession while the New opposed subscription or believed in a greatly limited commitment to its summary of doctrine. The Old Side held to strong church judicatories governed by presbyters that directed their churches with a thorough commitment to the Westminster Standards and presbyterian polity.
Samuel’s early education in preparation for college was with two older brothers under the direction of his father. He then entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1788. The university was during its years before Miller attended influenced by Francis Alison, a leader of Old Side Presbyterians. Mark Noll described Alison as “an Old Side stalwart” (Princeton & the Republic, 40). Alison’s work at the university was influential extending 1752-1779 with his positions including master of the Latin school, rector of the academy, teaching moral philosophy, professor of Greek and Latin, and vice provost. But at the time Miller attended the provost was John Ewing, pastor of First Church, Philadelphia. Ewing was taught in Alison’s New London academy then graduated the College of New Jersey (Princeton, New Side). Had Samuel been encouraged to go to University of Pennsylvania by his father because of its Old Side history during Alison’s years anticipating his continued influence through his students? Possibly, but Ewing’s views were not so rigorous as Alison’s. Young Miller, he was nineteen, graduated with high honors July 31, 1789 after only one year of attendance. As salutatorian he delivered a Latin oration against the lack of concern for educating women in his time. Note that this was the year after the United States Constitution was ratified and he was speaking of equality for women regarding education. Degree in hand, he returned to Dover.
Dover would always be home for Samuel Miller because he enjoyed the family farm and country life. John tutored his brilliant son in theology in preparation for the ministry. Licensure involved a multi-step process. He began trials at Rockawalkin Church in Somerset County, Maryland, April 20, 1791, delivering his doctrinal sermon from 1 Corinthians 15:22—
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The weighty doctrine of federal headship correlates the fall and sin with its defeat through the perfect righteousness and atoning work of the resurrected Christ. The next step for licensure was in June, followed by further examinations during the fall meeting in October to complete the process. He was tested regarding personal piety, Latin, Greek, rhetoric, logic, natural and moral philosophy, as well as divinity. At the October meeting he delivered what was described as a “popular sermon.” During this same meeting Samuel’s recently deceased father was remembered for his forty-three years of ministry to his congregations and for the presbytery.
The usual procedure for continuing his study of divinity would have been to find a local minister and pick up where his father’s instruction ended, but in November, Miller made his way west to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Carlisle was a community settled and developed by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians; it was a western enclave for Presbyterians who felt disenfranchised by the Eastern elite. He made the move with approval of his presbytery to study with Charles Nisbet (1736-1804), the president of Dickinson College. Nisbet could speak nine languages, was a member of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and a defender of rigorous Calvinism. Nisbet had recommended John Witherspoon for the College of New Jersey Presidency. Miller commented in his biography that in the evenings for two or three hours he would meet in Nisbet’s home to inquire
on whatever subject I might desire information, whether in Theology or Literature, ancient or modern, I had but to propose the topic, and suggest queries, to draw forth everything that I wished. (Life, 1:58; “I” has been substituted for “he”)
Nisbet’s knowledge was encyclopedic. Miller had expected Professor Nisbet to be cold and distant, but instead he found the Scotsman and his family affable and hospitable. Nisbet was as important doctrinally for Miller, other than his father, as was William Graham for his future colleague at Princeton Seminary, Archibald Alexander. When Nisbet died in 1804, the search for a replacement led to Miller, but he turned it down. Miller would publish in 1840, Memoir of the Rev. Charles Nisbet, D.D., but when he was asked to edit Nisbet’s lectures for publication, he turned down the request.
In 1792 Miller was invited to candidate for a church on Long Island, but when he stopped for a visit in New York he was invited to preach in a church. That fall, he was issued a call by a unanimous vote of the Collegiate Presbyterian Church of New York to join ministers John Rodgers and John McKnight.
Read More
Related Posts: