# "Neo-Puritanism" vs. "Neo-Calvinism"?



## Stope (Jun 13, 2017)

The attached side by side comparison of what the author calls "Neo-Puritanism" and "Neo-Calvinism" I think displays an accurate picture of the two. Do you guys agree?

I ask because Im finding myself leaning very much to the "Neo-Calvinism" "camp"... What are the dangers you see?


----------



## KMK (Jun 13, 2017)

I wonder if Grudem, SBTS, and the Navigators know that they are considered 'Neo-Puritans'. Personally, I have never heard the term.


----------



## Jake (Jun 13, 2017)

Neo-Calvinism is a much better defined term with a history and movement behind it. Neo-Puritanism in this document seems to lump together a lot of people/groups who focus primarily on piety that have no historical basis in the Puritans. Puritanism shouldn't be conflated with other piety-focused movements on that basis alone.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2017)

Neo-Puritanism should be changed to New Calvinism or YRR. There are dangers in both. Piper has come out with silly statements in his older age. Grudem has a funny view of the Trinity. And I fear the SBC is embracing Critical Race Theory.

Old-School Neo Calvinism of the Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdian/Bavinckian stripe is interesting, but that's not what you are getting today. The Toronto School was socialist at one time. There is a (not-so) underground homosexual movement at Calvin College. One of the philosophy profs there said the distinguished Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne should get *#@! in the $%^ for criticizing homosexuality (I think I can still find the facebook status).

If you like Neo-Calvinism, go read Bavinck.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 13, 2017)

Ah, I saw this coming from Scot McKnight on his blog a few years ago, the sorta liberal NT scholar who thinks he's an expert at everything, has to blog about it and yet has poor writing skills...


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 13, 2017)

Grudem has a funny view of the Trinity? Either I haven't read that chapter, or I don't remember it, or I have a funny view of the Trinity.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2017)

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 13, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php


That reminded me of an article on there that Grudem wrote citing all these supposed people who would be on his side of the debate. It was laughable. He even cited Robert Reymond! He didn't investigate in context at all, it was so sloppy, like a procrastinating high school student.


----------



## KMK (Jun 13, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> That reminded me of an article on there that Grudem wrote citing all these supposed people who would be on his side of the debate. It was laughable. He even cited Robert Reymond! He didn't investigate in context at all, it was so sloppy, like a procrastinating high school student.



I don't really understand how blogs work. Are blog writers under pressure from advertisers or such to provide new posts at a certain clip? Is it possible that blog writers don't have time for thorough research and editing?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 13, 2017)

KMK said:


> I don't really understand how blogs work. Are blog writers under pressure from advertisers or such to provide new posts at a certain clip? Is it possible that blog writers don't have time for thorough research and editing?


I don't mean to sound arrogant but, when you have someone acting like an expert on things yet you've clearly done a little deeper reading and found them to be in error then I am unsure why they can't be called out for distortion.


----------



## KMK (Jun 13, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I don't mean to sound arrogant but, when you have someone acting like an expert on things yet you've clearly done a little deeper reading and found them to be in error then I am unsure why they can't be called out for distortion.



Isn't there a comment section? Or do they filter all negative feedback? 

I have noticed a great deal of sloppiness on internet copy in many venues. It appears that people are under pressure to write quickly.


----------



## Von (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/the-eternal-subordination-of-t.php


I skimmed the above article... Does that mean that the eternal subordination of the Son is frowned upon? I never gave this view a thought - I took it to be true. Didn't Owen hold to this view in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

Von said:


> I skimmed the above article... Does that mean that the eternal subordination of the Son is frowned upon? I never gave this view a thought - I took it to be true. Didn't Owen hold to this view in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?



Grudem confuses "subordination" with the idea of a revealed order in the Trinity. Relation is also an essential category (at least according to Aristotle's nine views of substance). It's hard for Grudem to affirm both homoousios and eternal subordination, since Athanasius said that the relations between the Trinity are also homoousios.


----------



## Von (Jun 14, 2017)

I want to know more about the difference between "subordination" and "revealed order in the trinity", but I realise we are going . - sorry Jason. Is there anywhere (or maybe a previous thread that discusses this) or should I start a new thread on this topic?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

See the comments by Rev Winzer in particular.
https://puritanboard.com/threads/a-trinity-and-complementarian-debate.89987/#post-1107283


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Grudem confuses "subordination" with the idea of a revealed order in the Trinity. Relation is also an essential category (at least according to Aristotle's nine views of substance). It's hard for Grudem to affirm both homoousios and eternal subordination, since Athanasius said that the relations between the Trinity are also homoousios.


He would not see subordination for Jesus while just Incarnated, but that was eternally within the trinity Hos position as being subordinate to the Father...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 14, 2017)

See also:
Eternal Subordination of the Son debate...where are things now?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He would not see subordination for Jesus while just Incarnated, but that was eternally within the trinity Hos position as being subordinate to the Father...



Is that a statement or a question?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

But if you want Old School Neo Calvinism (I know, sounds like a contradiction in terms), then this is pretty good. Lots of free pdfs.
http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/


----------



## Stope (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> But if you want Old School Neo Calvinism (I know, sounds like a contradiction in terms), then this is pretty good. Lots of free pdfs.
> http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/


O my...yes this is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In other news, by way of follow up:

If the YRR/Neo-Puritans focus on Personal salvation, and the Neo-Calvinists (of the Kuyper sort) focus on, in addition to personal slavation, but ALSO a focus on the Culture mandate and the restoration of all things... Is there any red flags here on the Neo-Calvinist end?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

Stope said:


> O my...yes this is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> In other news, by way of follow up:
> 
> If the YRR/Neo-Puritans focus on Personal salvation, and the Neo-Calvinists (of the Kuyper sort) focus on, in addition to personal slavation, but ALSO a focus on the Culture mandate and the restoration of all things... Is there any red flags here on the Neo-Calvinist end?



There is a tendency to downplay piety (though you don't see that in Bavinck). The modern day Calvin College types are flaming liberals.

I would start along these lines:

1. Bavinck, _Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena_.
2. Mouw, _*Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction*
3._ https://www.amazon.com/Free-Church-...UTF8&qid=1497473323&sr=8-4&keywords=john+bolt

Here is a good guide here.
https://hermanbavinck.org/


----------



## Stope (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> There is a tendency to downplay piety (though you don't see that in Bavinck). The modern day Calvin College types are flaming liberals.
> 
> I would start along these lines:
> 
> ...


Great - very helpful indeed. having said that, do you yourself align yourself with these type folks? Also, have you ever heard of Jon Tyson? If so, what are your thoughts?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

Stope said:


> Great - very helpful indeed. having said that, do you yourself align yourself with these type folks? Also, have you ever heard of Jon Tyson? If so, what are your thoughts?



Not on all counts. I am sympathetic to the early aims of the movement.

1. I am a partial-preterist; they usually aren't.
2. They tend towards social democracy. I do not.
3. Epistemologically, we are on the same page.


----------



## Stope (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> 1. I am a partial-preterist; they usually aren't.


---What are they usually? I assume idealists? 



ReformedReidian said:


> 2. They tend towards social democracy. I do not.


---What does that mean? Does that mean that they want to like institute Christian "laws"?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

Stope said:


> ---What are they usually? I assume idealists?



Kind of, though Kuyper was a futurist.




> ---What does that mean? Does that mean that they want to like institute Christian "laws"?



Quite the opposite. Social Democracy usually suggests big govt involvement in welfare, public works, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2017)

I also strongly recommend you read the following books as well. I wouldn't call them neo-calvinists, but they appreciate the efforts of those guys.
https://www.amazon.com/General-Reve...d=1497489621&sr=8-16&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Image-Go...id=1497489621&sr=8-3&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Dogm...id=1497489621&sr=8-5&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer


----------



## Stope (Jun 14, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> I also strongly recommend you read the following books as well. I wouldn't call them neo-calvinists, but they appreciate the efforts of those guys.
> https://www.amazon.com/General-Reve...d=1497489621&sr=8-16&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
> https://www.amazon.com/Man-Image-Go...id=1497489621&sr=8-3&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer
> https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Dogm...id=1497489621&sr=8-5&keywords=g.+c.+berkouwer


WHOA! Those look so good - aye aye aye, no I have to finish my current books, think Ill start with Man in the Image of God text first. Thank you so so much!


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 15, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Is that a statement or a question?


My understanding as to what Dr Gtudem holds regarding how the trinity functions among Themselves.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2017)

Stope said:


> WHOA! Those look so good - aye aye aye, no I have to finish my current books, think Ill start with Man in the Image of God text first. Thank you so so much!



TO get your feet wet, I recommend the following short books.

Al Wolters, _Creation Regained_. An outstanding presentation of the Kuyperian position.
_Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck _(Wolters and somebody else). Can be read in under an hour.

Then find some essay where Bavinck deals with Nature and Grace. The Herman Bavinck audio is a good start.
https://bavinckinstitute.org/resources/audio-lectures/pearl-and-leaven-conference-audio/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2017)

some more free stuff
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/the_dooyeweerd_center.asp
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/paideia_books.asp

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Stope (Jun 15, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> some more free stuff
> http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/the_dooyeweerd_center.asp
> http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/paideia_books.asp


These are so helpful! Might I ask you: do you align yourself with this camp? If so how did you arrive there, and what do others think? Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2017)

Stope said:


> These are so helpful! Might I ask you: do you align yourself with this camp? If so how did you arrive there, and what do others think? Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?



When I became Reformed the nexus I was in was led by a highly skilled Kuyperian evangelist who brought dozens, if not near to a hundred young people into various local churches. And when I moved to another state, which said evangelist was already in, there was aggressive evangelistic campaigns and witnessing at abortion centers.

We did studies on Kuyper's _Lectures on Calvinism_ and Bahnsen's _Van Til's Apologetics_.

I am something of a Kuyperian, though I don't follow the movement slavishly. Which I will note below:

1. I think Dooyeweerd is absolutely correct on "Ground Motives," though he weakened on Scripture midway through his career (but FN Lee says he came back to a more orthodox view before he died).
2. I think Kuyper's original thrust is correct, but he was a political pluralist. He didn't believe in a Christian state. Of course, in his time period everyone was living off of Christian capital, so it didn't matter. In our world today, where Cultural Marxism reigns (and Leftist shooters are gunning Republicans in broad daylight), we can't make any such assumptions.
3. The "Northern" Kuyperian movement in America, centered around Toronto and Calvin college, is an utter disaster. I am not saying that Calvin College has apostasized yet, but they are close.
4. The Kuyperians who stayed in more orthodox denominations (PCA, OPC, etc) have done fine.
5. Almost all Kuyperians are amillennialists (which probably sends the Old Life crowd into panic attacks). I am not.


----------



## MW (Jun 15, 2017)

Stope said:


> Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?



The problems from the historic Calvinist perspective are discussed here: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2017)

> Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?



One simple answer is that they are usually Dutch and sometimes the Dutch (whom I love) can be insular. But I've seen fellow-Scots Irish do the same thing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 16, 2017)

Here is Frame's critique of Dooyeweerd's disciples.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FrameJohnAmsterdamPhilosophy1972.pdf

I don't entirely buy the criticism others made that these guys downplay piety. Some do, but it's not a necessary connection. Kuyper and Bavinck wrote movingly on these issues. And one can find evidence of "Vanilla Reformed" types who aren't as pious as we want them to be (not sure how to gauge that, though).

Some of Dooyeweerd's disciples might have troublesome views on the Covenant, but that might just be a Dutch thing in general, since a lot of non-Dooyeweerdian Dutch guys have unique views on the covenant (Schilder, Hoekesema).


----------



## MW (Jun 16, 2017)

I would not say they "downplay piety;" it is just that the piety comes to be spread across a number of spheres, and the old church piety is spread very thin in the process.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2017)

It's pretty obvious what side of the fence the creator of the chart is on. 

And it's funny that he says that the Neo-Puritan emphasis is TULIP when one and possibly two of the examples of "sample leaders" that he gives are hypothetical universalists who wouldn't affirm it in the way that the average John Owen, A.W. Pink or R.C. Sproul fan would. Someone who doesn't really believe in particular redemption or else never really talks about it can hardly be said to have that as an emphasis. 

If he wants to say that Neo-Puritans don't care about anything other than salvation, his examples there are also at least half wrong. I wonder, is only caring about salvation and neglecting the culture the reason why Albert Mohler has a worldview related podcast 5 days a week? More accurate examples of that would be John MacArthur, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the R2kers and maybe Mark Dever. (Saying that MacArthur isn't "reformed" is immaterial in a context where Platt, Driscoll, Carson and Grudem are the examples used.) He may want to say he wants to focus on living people, but MLJ is pretty much the fountainhead of the neo-Puritanism he wishes to criticize, albeit a form of it that isn't nearly Puritan enough for many of us here. 

BTW, when liberals think of Christians who threaten their hegemony, do they think of Calvin College and Seminary, or do they think of SBTS or even MacArthur?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 17, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> BTW, when liberals think of Christians who threaten their hegemony, do they think of Calvin College and Seminary, or do they think of SBTS or even MacArthur?



I know for a fact they think every one of us on this board is a militant Rushdoony-ite.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2017)

Here is another angle to look at it:

There are "two" Kuypers. One is the common grace Kuyper and the other is the antithesis. The common grace can be seen in institutions like Calvin College/Seminary. They are going liberal. The antithesis can be seen in the presuppositional camp.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 29, 2017)

This is a good intro to Dooyeweerd that doesn't have some of his later questionable ideas.
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/RootsOfWesternCulture.pdf


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2017)

Regardless of where you end up on the neo-calvinism issue, give these lectures by Knudsen a go. Nowhere else in English will you get expositions of Vollenhoven and Stoker (the latter spent time in a British concentration camp).


----------



## Stope (Jul 2, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Regardless of where you end up on the neo-calvinism issue, give these lectures by Knudsen a go. Nowhere else in English will you get expositions of Vollenhoven and Stoker (the latter spent time in a British concentration camp).


Thank you for these helpful links! I was able to get the Roots of Western Culture, but the Knudsen lectures arent yielding... Do you per chance have a direct link?

Mahalo plenty!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 2, 2017)

https://students.wts.edu/resources/media.html?paramType=audio

Go to speakers and click on the search tab on the right, then drop down to Knudsen


----------



## Stope (Aug 3, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> 3. The "Northern" Kuyperian movement in America, centered around Toronto and Calvin college, is an utter disaster. I am not saying that Calvin College has apostasized yet, but they are close.


These are the things that Im drawn to, not sure how "Kuyperian" they are:
---Moving away from the 2 act Gospel (Fall - Atonement), but the 4 act Gospel (Creation - Fall - Atonement - Restoration). I feel like I have been needing this full picture my entire life. Mainly they fact that the first act or Creation and especially the creation mandate and the importance of us being created in God's image, is so so so so compelling and now informs every square inch of my own life and now there is no sacred/secualr divide... What are your thoughts and who can I read more on this, and what would you warn me against?



Pilgrim said:


> If he wants to say that Neo-Puritans don't care about anything other than salvation, his examples there are also at least half wrong. I wonder, is only caring about salvation and neglecting the culture the reason why Albert Mohler has a worldview related podcast 5 days a week?


---I think the idea is more that MASS EVANGELISM is the essence of the Christian life, to snatch as many people from hell as possible, but Im not really sure... I do though get that sense prior to reading these neos that the Chrsitian Life was essentially grab as many people from the fires of hell and then wait it out... But then if thats all this life is its not very complelling nor does it appear why we were created... Thoughts?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2017)

Stope said:


> These are the things that Im drawn to, not sure how "Kuyperian" they are:
> ---Moving away from the 2 act Gospel (Fall - Atonement), but the 4 act Gospel (Creation - Fall - Atonement - Restoration). I feel like I have been needing this full picture my entire life. Mainly they fact that the first act or Creation and especially the creation mandate and the importance of us being created in God's image, is so so so so compelling and now informs every square inch of my own life and now there is no sacred/secualr divide... What are your thoughts and who can I read more on this, and what would you warn me against?
> 
> 
> ---I think the idea is more that MASS EVANGELISM is the essence of the Christian life, to snatch as many people from hell as possible, but Im not really sure... I do though get that sense prior to reading these neos that the Chrsitian Life was essentially grab as many people from the fires of hell and then wait it out... But then if thats all this life is its not very complelling nor does it appear why we were created... Thoughts?



I think Carson's book on Christ and Culture is worth looking at. In discussing Kuyper he made one very astute remark: if you divorce Kuyper's "transforming culture" from Reformed piety and doctrine, the result is sudden death.

Or if you want something meatier, go with Bavinck.


----------



## jomawh (Aug 4, 2017)

I really don't agree with what goes where on this table. Kuyper *began *with the glory of God, necessarily tied to His sovereignty, and followed through the logic to necessarily conclude that all spheres, dominions, and subjects are subservient to the king. The "Neo-Puritan" view, as represented here, appears seems short-sighted and individualistic, focusing primarily upon personal experience with the "key storyline" being sin and salvation- it's Neo-Pietism with the five-points tattooed on.

The Puritans themselves would have equally held to personal piety *and *Christ's overriding lordship, the whole story (rather than stopping short at salvation), and would have been the first to write against limiting God's sovereignty to *only *salvation- that would have been particularly anathema.

Jon Edwards himself-


> This new creation, which is the same with the work of redemption, is, in the most especial manner, spoken of as the work of Jesus: for he is ever mentioned as the great Redeemer and restorer. This work is committed to him: for this he has a full commission. It is left in his hands; all things are committed to him; all power in heaven and in earth is given him, that he may accomplish this work, and bring it to its most absolute perfection. To this end are subjected to him, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, and he is made head over all things; and to this end, the world to come, that is, all the affairs of that new creation, are put in subjection unto him: and he, with regard to all the transactions belonging to this new creation, that are written in the book of God, is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Christ built the house; he built all things, especially in this new creation; and therefore is God. These things are plainly asserted in Heb. iii. 3, 4. “For this man (rather this person) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man: but he that built all things is God.” Thus, the work of redemption, which is both the greatest work of salvation, and the greatest work of creation, (the two kinds of works chiefly spoken of in Scripture as divine,) is accomplished by the Son of God. The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc; 2007) p. 506


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 4, 2017)

Here is what happens when you divorce Kuyper from historic Christian ethics.
http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-orthodox-christianity-some.html


----------

