# Neo-Calvinism As Popularized by Kuyper



## Quatchu (Aug 19, 2012)

Been running across Neo-Calvinism (as popularized by Kuyper) lately. Ive been finding a hard time coming across a good definition of what it is. How does it differ from historic Calvinism? Is it orthodox?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 19, 2012)

Never heard of it but it doesn't sound good. Looking forward to some replies.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 19, 2012)

Do you mean Abraham Kuyper?


----------



## Quatchu (Aug 19, 2012)

Yes. Abraham Kuyper the dutch theologian.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 19, 2012)

From what I see on wikipedia (yes it is rather biased I know and not always accurate) neo calvinism seems to develop into Theonomy. Not that it looks like it differs from calvinism, but goes beyond to the cultural mandate idea, rejecting 2k.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2012)

Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism - The Westminster Presbyterian

It's not all bad and doesn't need to be wedded to theonomy (not advocated by Kuyper), presumptive regeneration (advocated by Kuyper), too optimistic a view of common grace (Kuyper again), and a lack of emphasis on conversion and experientialism/experimentalism (as it developed in some Dutch churches).

The best of Neo-Calvinism can be combined with Paleo-Calvinism.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 19, 2012)

I think neo-Calvinism refers to something far more recent. Mr. Kuyer may have been overly broad in some regards, but I believe he is mostly solid. The devotional books I've read show a mind made very sharp by deep meditation upon the scriptures.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2012)

An old thread on it:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/wcf-neo-calvinism-54305/


----------



## Philip (Aug 19, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> It's not all bad and doesn't need to be wedded to theonomy (not advocated by Kuyper)



More like specifically rejected by Kuyper.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2012)

> More like specifically rejected by Kuyper



Theonomy as a modern movement didn't get going until 1973, with the publication of Rushdoony's _Institutes of Biblical Law_

*From Wikipedia, the Reliable Encyclopedia*


> Kuyper was a pluralist who governed in coalition with the Roman Catholic political party and was opposed to the freemarket economics that theonomists think Biblical law requires.



Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Quatchu (Aug 19, 2012)

Would neo-calvinism be in opposition with Two Kingdoms Theology? Or can the two be in harmony?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2012)

Some R2Ks have callled Kuyperians of the non-theonomic, non-reconstructionist, type soft-theonomists, out of disapproval.

R2K seems to de-emphasise if not disapprove of emphasis on the cultural mandate or on transformationalism.


----------



## Philip (Aug 19, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Theonomy as a modern movement didn't get going until 1973, with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law



True enough, but in _The Ordinances of God_ (1873) he refutes its basic tenets.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 19, 2012)

Quatchu said:


> Would neo-calvinism be in opposition with Two Kingdoms Theology? Or can the two be in harmony?


From what it seems the 2k types seem to pit their view against Kuyper.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 20, 2012)

"Neo-Kuyperianism" refers to the renewal of orthodox Reformed theology in the Netherlands in the late 19th century and early 20th century led by Abraham Kuyper and others (e.g., Bavinck). It's a historical, descriptive term. 



> From what it seems the 2k types seem to pit their view against Kuyper.



Sometimes but see David VanDrunen, "Abraham Kuyper and the Reformed Natural Law and Two Kingdoms Tradition,” _Calvin Theological Journal_, Vol. 41 (2007): 283-307 where he argues that Kuyper taught a version of the two kingdoms distinction without necessarily using the traditional language.

We should be careful about speaking of "the" two kingdoms view. There isn't a single, unified "two kingdoms" view. Reformed and Lutheran Protestants have made a distinction between the two kingdoms since the earliest days of the Reformation but they have done so in different ways. For example, Calvin used this distinction explicitly. 



> Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority (_Institutes_ 3.19.15)



His use of the distinction was different from Luther's. Within the Reformed tradition there has been variety within the Reformed use of the distinction.

In the modern period, we lost the use of the term "two kingdoms." In the same period we lost a good number of historic Reformed categories that need to be recovered and applied in our time. So, we have two tasks: 1) to figure out what the term (or category) used to mean in the classical period; 2) what we should do with it today in our time. 

To distinguish two kingdoms isn't to guarantee a particular outcome. It's a way of analyzing a question or a problem. For my part, I'm not particularly wedded to the nomenclature "two kingdoms." I'm happy to speak of one kingdom with two spheres. I hope that, as we continue to work through these issues together, we'll do so patiently, charitably, and intelligently (i.e., having taken the time to read the essential texts in this discussion).

Here's an interview I did with David VanDrunen a few years back.

Here's a more recent interview.


----------



## mvdm (Aug 20, 2012)

Kuyper was among what we call "Neo-Calvinists". It is anachronistic to call Kuyper a "Neo-Kuyperian".

And for clarity's sake, Neo Calvinism is in fact a primary target for Van Drunen and his "Neo- 2k". For more extended analysis on the Neo-2k vs Neo Calvinism, see here:

http://worldviewresourcesinternational.com/kloosterman/DVDreviewNL2K.pdf

And here:

2K or Not 2K? That is the Question: A Review of David VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms by Keith Mathison | Ligonier Ministries Blog


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 20, 2012)

I like that term NEO-2K! LOL. I don't understand the Neo-Calvinism label. I do get the Neo in front of some of the 2K stuff that is coming out today.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 20, 2012)

Neo is simply Greek for "new." 

As I understand the history of Reformed theology in the Netherlands, the followers of Kuyper are usually called neo-Kuyperians. Kuyper's relations to the neo-Kuyperians is debated. There are arguably those neo-K's who tend to primarily interested in cult, i.e., worship, church, religion and those who are more interested in culture, i.e., life-outside of worship and church. Some neo-Ks like his doctrine of common grace (or some version of it) and sometimes it even swallows up the distinction between belief and unbelief. Other neo-Ks are committed to Kuyper's doctrine of the antithesis between belief and unbelief so that the reject any version of common grace. Of course, Kuyper taught both common grace and the antithesis but it hasn't been easy for neo-Ks to keep them together as he did.

To one degree or other, we're all neo-Kuyperians I suppose. There is no question whether there is "one square inch" over which Christ is Lord. The question is how that Lordship is to be manifested in earthly institutions. I think there mainstream Kuyperians, who still agree with what Kuyper intended to do but he is so influential that people frequently want to cloak their program (social, intellectual) with his mantle even when their ecclesiastical life and theology has little to do with his. It is common to hear free-church, independent, Bible-church, Baptist evangelicals speaking in Kuyperian catch-phrases without much awareness of their original setting. It's a little like hearing the same folk quoting Machen. 

Interestingly, there was only one serious attempt to build a Free University in the USA on the model of the Free in the NL but it failed. There are no exact equivalents to Kuyper's ecclesiastical or social/cultural newspapers today. These facts suggest some of the difficulties of replicating Kuyper's program in late modern N. America.


----------



## mvdm (Aug 20, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Neo is simply Greek for "new."



Hence the term would not apply to Kuyper himself, but to any later followers of Kuyper who make adaptations to Kuyper's thought. 

Kuyper himself would be the quintessential Kuyperian.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 20, 2012)

Philip said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Theonomy as a modern movement didn't get going until 1973, with the publication of Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law
> ...



Where do you obtain that book?


----------



## Philip (Aug 20, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > Peairtach said:
> ...



I have it as a selection in _Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society_ by James Skillen and Rockne McCarthy. He says at the end of a section dealing with this issue (emphasis mine):

"Calvin already states in so many words that the revelation of Holy Scripture is like a pair of glasses that enables him to read once again with his weakened eyes the partially obscured revelation of nature. It reveals to us the ground rules, the primary relationships, the principles that govern man's life together and his relationship to the most holy God, _not_ information concerning the individual parts of the state as a whole."


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 20, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Sometimes but see David VanDrunen, "Abraham Kuyper and the Reformed Natural Law and Two Kingdoms Tradition,” Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 41 (2007): 283-307 where he argues that Kuyper taught a version of the two kingdoms distinction without necessarily using the traditional language.


Thanks Dr Clark for that clarification. I tried to use language that I thought would be the most neutral in describing VanDrunen's brand of 2k theology and its relation to views that tend to get associated with Kuyper. It seems to me that given Kuyper's stance, if you will, in reformed history; there is a lot of debate over what could be considered the core of Kuyper's thought and what ideas should be labeled Kuyperian. From what I have seen from reading blogs and the little I have read from Kuyper, he seems to be one of those people that many want to have on their side so he is often quoted to "agree" with a position being put forth. I hope what I am trying to say is clear, if not well I only forced you to read five lines of babbling.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 20, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Sometimes but see David VanDrunen, "Abraham Kuyper and the Reformed Natural Law and Two Kingdoms Tradition,” Calvin Theological Journal, Vol. 41 (2007): 283-307 where he argues that Kuyper taught a version of the two kingdoms distinction without necessarily using the traditional language.


Thanks Dr Clark for that clarification. I tried to use language that I thought would be the most neutral in describing VanDrunen's brand of 2k theology and its relation to views that tend to get associated with Kuyper. It seems to me that given Kuyper's stance, if you will, in reformed history; there is a lot of debate over what could be considered the core of Kuyper's thought and what ideas should be labeled Kuyperian. From what I have seen from reading blogs and the little I have read from Kuyper, he seems to be one of those people that many want to have on their side so he is often quoted to "agree" with a position being put forth. I hope what I am trying to say is clear, if not well I only forced you to read five lines of babbling.


----------



## PaulCLawton (Aug 20, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Some neo-Ks like his doctrine of common grace (or some version of it) and sometimes it even swallows up the distinction between belief and unbelief. Other neo-Ks are committed to Kuyper's doctrine of the antithesis between belief and unbelief so that the reject any version of common grace.


This explains a lot, I've almost wondered at times if there were two distinct 19th century Dutch academic/theologian/politicians with the same name...


----------



## darrellmaurina (Aug 21, 2012)

One item to remember ... some of us like Abraham Kuyper's politics and views on cultural engagement but have major problems with presumptive regeneration.

To say that somebody is neo-Kuyperian in their view of politics and culture does not mean that person is neo-Kuyperian in other areas of theology.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Aug 22, 2012)

R. Scott Clark said:


> There is no question whether there is "one square inch" over which Christ is Lord. The question is how that Lordship is to be manifested in earthly institutions.



Well put Dr. Clark.


----------



## darrellmaurina (Aug 23, 2012)

And on that point, Dr. Clark and I can agree. I think it's important that I acknowledge agreement with Dr. Clark when I can do so. There's a difference between disagreeing on fundamental principles and agreeing on those principles but disagreeing on how the principles should be applied.



Shawn Mathis said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > There is no question whether there is "one square inch" over which Christ is Lord. The question is how that Lordship is to be manifested in earthly institutions.
> ...


----------



## yeutter (Aug 23, 2012)

darrellmaurina said:


> One item to remember ... some of us like Abraham Kuyper's politics and views on cultural engagement but have major problems with presumptive regeneration.
> 
> To say that somebody is neo-Kuyperian in their view of politics and culture does not mean that person is neo-Kuyperian in other areas of theology.


The other side of the coin is those who like Kuyper's understanding of presumptive regeneration and his view antithesis between belief and unbelief, but have major problems with his views on cultural engagement and common grace. Those on that side of the spectrum are not called neo-Kuyperian.


----------

