This book marks a substantial contribution to Bavinck studies. Sutanto's exploration of Bavinck's theological epistemology not only deepens the secondary literature on this topic but also nuances, and in certain instances offers important corrections to, the anglophone reception of Bavinck as a whole. The author displays his firm grasp of the subject matter and offers plausible remarks on the possibilities for retrieval that Bavinck's epistemology presents. While Sutanto does not necessarily advocate a simple reiteration of Bavinck's schema, he affirms Bavinck's principled eclecticism as worthy of emulation (180).
Sutanto's study extends the work of James Eglinton, who has examined the close relationship in which the construct of the organism stands to the doctrine of the Trinity. Sutanto applies these insights to Bavinck's epistemology, arguing that Bavinck is a synthetic thinker who drew on a wide range of ancient and modern sources in order to articulate a theological epistemology suited to his times. This reflects Bavinck's broader theological rationale, which Sutanto aptly summarizes with a pithy quote from the foreword to the first edition of Bavinck's major work: ‘[Theology] is rooted in the past but labours for the future’ (6).
This evaluation of Bavinck guides the reader through the straits of a notable interpretative difficulty that has hampered the reception of Bavinck. Sutanto draws attention to the way in which Bavinck's eclecticism has either led previous interpreters to claim Bavinck for one strand of thought to the exclusion of the others or else to acknowledge the variety yet view this as evidence of an internal conflict which undermines the stability of Bavinck's system. Firmly rejecting both of these interpretative possibilities, Sutanto argues that Bavinck's use of the organic motif yields a coherent synthesis of the various conceptual idioms on which he draws (10).
The central chapters, which chart Bavinck's ‘meshing’ of a Thomist account of perception and absolute Idealism, provide the warrant for this alternative reading. The fine-grained analysis of Bavinck's purported affinity with Thomas Reid presented in chapter 5 is perhaps the most important contribution of this book. Sutanto shows that Bavinck's acknowledgment of a gap between subject and object makes it very difficult to claim Bavinck for a common-sense or naïve realism and problematizes interpretations that portray Bavinck as primarily influenced by Neo-Thomism.
This insight is put to good use in the examination of the demonstrable affinity that exists between Bavinck and Eduard von Hartmann. Sutanto builds on observations made by Henk van den Belt regarding the potential importance of this thinker, tracing out ways in which Bavinck's conceptual grammar and mode of reasoning mirrors von Hartmann's. Crucially, Sutanto argues that Bavinck's synthesis of medieval and modern paradigms obtains by means of Bavinck's deployment of the organic motif.
If this impressive study has a weakness, it is that Sutanto absorbs Eglinton's analysis regarding the origins of Bavinck's organic motif too quickly. Like Eglinton, Sutanto rejects earlier readings of Bavinck which claimed that the organic motif derives from F. W. J. Schelling. Following Eglinton, Sutanto maintains that the organic motif derives entirely from the doctrine of the Trinity. This allows Sutanto to dismiss claims that Bavinck is a conflicted or incoherent thinker. Yet it also exposes Sutanto to a cheaply won rejoinder from adherents of the reading he rejects.
Ironically, this is because Sutanto rightly notes that Bavinck ‘deploys the language of the organic to answer specific epistemological questions with acute precision’ (15). Yet if it can be shown that Bavinck's organism does not derive solely from a classical doctrine of the Trinity (which I think it can), it could be argued that this very fact problematizes the coherence of Bavinck's synthesis. Such critique, nevertheless, would not necessarily overturn Sutanto's broader thesis regarding Bavinck's eclecticism.
In many ways, the Idealist origins of the organic motif add explanatory power to Sutanto's claim that Bavinck is an eclectic thinker who attempts a synthesis of orthodoxy and modernity. For example, Sutanto's argument that Bavinck uses the organic motif to forge a link between Thomas Aquinas and absolute Idealism becomes even more compelling given von Hartmann's dependence on Schelling's Naturphilosophie. Similarly, Sutanto's insightful account of Bavinck's concept of the ‘organism of science’ accrues greater warrant when one considers the way in which the formal properties of Bavinck's organism are identical to those of Schelling.
Sutanto's broader argument, therefore, stands whether or not the origins of the organism are traced to Schelling. But the constructive questions that Sutanto's study generates would change if Schelling does in fact stand behind Bavinck's use of the organism. If the tool by means of which Bavinck forges his synthesis is an Idealist construct, orthodoxy would stand in a different relation to modernity in Bavinck's synthesis. Thus, while Sutanto's thesis rests secure, the precise role that modern thoughtforms play in Bavinck's theological epistemology is open to question.
This potential weakness notwithstanding, this book deserves high praise. It is a sophisticated and lucid analysis that breaks new ground. The field of Bavinck studies owes a considerable debt to Sutanto. His monograph deserves wide circulation.
