# Pro Rege volume 1 (Kuyper)



## RamistThomist (Mar 13, 2019)

Kuyper, Abraham. Pro Rege volume 1. Lexham Press. Kindle.

This book falls under the category of “Good Kuyper.” This is the Kuyper of the antithesis, not the abstracted Kuyper of common grace (though, admittedly, elements of the latter are present). The book begins on a strange note: The Dutch Empire and Islam. Kuyper remarks that the Queen of the Netherlands ruled over more Muslims than she did Christians. Kuyper saw the writing on the wall: no longer could anyone pretend to be a “Christian Netherlands.” How are you going to enforce Article 36 of the Belgic Confession? How can you have a Christian voice in society without committing to either theocracy of secularism?

This book is a series of meditations on Christ’s kingship. It is not sustained analysis. Kuyper analyzes Christ’s kingship according to his exaltation and its operation. Of particular importance is Kuyper’s analysis of the spirit realm. Granted, our understanding of ancient near eastern texts and languages is much more sophisticated today, and there are some things Kuyper couldn’t have known, but still--he was probably the most insightful prior to recent developments. He writes, “Nothing has done more damage to the church’s confession of Jesus’s kingship than the marked increase in indifference towards the spirit world, whether toward angels or demons” (loc. 427).

Christ as Organic Head

Kuyper has received a lot of unnecessary (and often inept) criticism on his use of organic metaphors. Supposedly this is “pantheism” or “Hegelianism” or some rot. It’s biblical. It’s John 15. Kuyper writes, “The Head of the body is a mystical-organic concept, and it points to the organic communion of those who are one in faith, hope, and love” (loc. 1015). While there is an external aspect of his work (preaching of the gospel and a righteousness extra nos), there is an organic aspect: we really are connected to each other via our head.

Something that arises from the very processes of life is organic. Now, if Kuyper is arguing that Christ arises from the human processes of life, and only that, then yes, he is a pantheist. But that is specifically not what he is arguing. Christ’s organic kingship will one day organically communicate itself to us that we will be kings and reign with him (5348).

The Typology of the World City

Kuyper read the signs of the times and saw a systematic darkening of culture. This is manifested in the “world cities,” which in themselves focus the evil. By rejecting the unity of Christ, it seeks a unity of its own (loc. 1750). These are antitypes of Babylon.

What Kind of King?

Evidently Kuyper was already familiar with the false spiritualism of “not of this world.” While it is true that his kingdom is not earthly, the contrast, spiritual, does not mean something nebulous like “gushy pious thoughts.” It means, but not limited to, power of the spirit realm and revelation of knowledge. Echoing George Gillespie, Kuyper rightly argues that political authority does not flow from Christ as mediator, but from God in creation (loc. 2240).

The Essence of Dominion Man

Kuyper, anticipating Klaas Schilder, links man’s essence with dominion and the royal charter (2515).

Miracles

While he is a cessationist, Kuyper pushes back against the claim “Miracles don’t real no more.” On a more serious note, Kuyper, following the New Testament, notes that Christ’s power to do miracles usually stems from his human nature, not his divine. That’s why he did stuff “in the power of the Spirit.” Indeed, “it remained a human power to the very end” (2914).

While Kuyper is most famous for common grace, and I think that eventually dooms his project, he makes a very pertinent observation that undoes his whole take on common grace: “there is a process that grows in intensity. Similar events return again and again, but every time they return, the same struggle manifests itself with increasing ferocity. The outpouring of God’s wrath begins” (7829). In other words, the eschatological war against the wicked is intensifying in history. Gary North and Klaas Schilder could have written that exact paragraph.

Conclusion

We commend Lexham Press for getting this in English. We further commend them for making it easily accessible at $5.99 on Kindle. We don’t agree with everything Kuyper said. But this is a pretty good volume. My main criticism is that it is too wordy. Some chapters probably could be excised and others could be shorter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 13, 2019)

I want to understand more your dichotomy of the two Kuyper's. I haven't read much originally, but I know he has a lot of good stuff out there. But I was shocked by the first few chapters of his multi-volume work on common grace; and the extent to which he goes to deny that the Noahic Covenant has any place in the Covenant of Grace. Before I had assumed that he saw it as both/and but it's very clear he sees Genesis 9 as something totally different; a different species entirely. Indeed, he never interacts at all with Genesis 6, which I believe is (sadly) the main reason he comes to the conclusions he does. He fails to realize that the covenant God makes in Genesis 9 isn't with all humanity/creation in general; but is a particular covenant with everything that comes out of the ark (in contrast from the all creation/humanity He had just finished destroying in the flood).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Bill Duncan (Mar 14, 2019)

Vos, on the Noachian Revelation, calls it "positive, constructive measures" taken for the furtherance of God's divine purpose and "did not directly relate to the prosecution of redemption although an indirect bearing upon that also must not be overlooked. That the development of *natural *life is proximately dealt with." Primarily common/natural. Berith sign was natural/universal/uniting, rainbow. Redemptive berith sign bloody/specific/dividing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> I want to understand more your dichotomy of the two Kuyper's. I haven't read much originally, but I know he has a lot of good stuff out there. But I was shocked by the first few chapters of his multi-volume work on common grace; and the extent to which he goes to deny that the Noahic Covenant has any place in the Covenant of Grace. Before I had assumed that he saw it as both/and but it's very clear he sees Genesis 9 as something totally different; a different species entirely. Indeed, he never interacts at all with Genesis 6, which I believe is (sadly) the main reason he comes to the conclusions he does. He fails to realize that the covenant God makes in Genesis 9 isn't with all humanity/creation in general; but is a particular covenant with everything that comes out of the ark (in contrast from the all creation/humanity He had just finished destroying in the flood).



I discuss some of the problems here
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/review-schilders-struggle-for-the-unity-of-the-church/


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Vos, on the Noachian Revelation, calls it "positive, constructive measures" taken for the furtherance of God's divine purpose and "did not directly relate to the prosecution of redemption although an indirect bearing upon that also must not be overlooked. That the development of *natural *life is proximately dealt with." Primarily common/natural. Berith sign was natural/universal/uniting, rainbow. Redemptive berith sign bloody/specific/dividing.



That's much better.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> I want to understand more your dichotomy of the two Kuyper's. I haven't read much originally, but I know he has a lot of good stuff out there. But I was shocked by the first few chapters of his multi-volume work on common grace; and the extent to which he goes to deny that the Noahic Covenant has any place in the Covenant of Grace. Before I had assumed that he saw it as both/and but it's very clear he sees Genesis 9 as something totally different; a different species entirely. Indeed, he never interacts at all with Genesis 6, which I believe is (sadly) the main reason he comes to the conclusions he does. He fails to realize that the covenant God makes in Genesis 9 isn't with all humanity/creation in general; but is a particular covenant with everything that comes out of the ark (in contrast from the all creation/humanity He had just finished destroying in the flood).



here is another angle
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2019/03/14/everlasting-covenant-kamphuis/


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 14, 2019)

If justification is from eternity, then all you need to do is be aware of it. All that is outside the eternal idea is a mere semblance to this world. This leads to a chilling sacramentology: “When we apply this to the Covenant and baptism it means that Kuyper did not hesitate to speak about a–deceptive–appearance. For there are ‘true partakers of the covenant’ and ‘those who are partakers of the Covenant in appearance only’ (Kuyper, _De Leer der Verbonden_, p.341). This has some consequences whenever a sacrament is distributed to the non-elect people, “As often as this sacrament is distributed to the non-elect people, the Lord God ‘retracts his grace from it, so that they do not receive the real sacrament as yet.’ Kuyper formulates it in an even clearer and more frightening way when he says: “Sometimes there is a pseudo-baptism, just like there can be a pseudo-birth among men, so that no baptism took place or no child is born” (Kamphuis 24-25).


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 14, 2019)

Bill Duncan said:


> Vos, on the Noachian Revelation, calls it "positive, constructive measures" taken for the furtherance of God's divine purpose and "did not directly relate to the prosecution of redemption although an indirect bearing upon that also must not be overlooked. That the development of *natural *life is proximately dealt with." Primarily common/natural. Berith sign was natural/universal/uniting, rainbow. Redemptive berith sign bloody/specific/dividing.


Sadly, I think both Vos and Bavinck were influenced by Kuyper on this point. But if you go back a good bit further, this was never the majority view. Check out what Thomas Goodwin had to say about it: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/noah-additional-resources. Francis Roberts had the same take.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 14, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's much better.


It may be a tiny bit better. My personal conviction is that it was more the other way around: primarily about redemption; secondarily about natural order, common grace, etc.


----------

