Abraham Kuyper--God's Renaissance Man

[RamistThomist]

One desire has been the ruling passion of my life. One high motive has acted like a spur upon my mind and soul. And sooner than that I should seek escape from the sacred necessity that is laid upon me, let the breath of life fail me. It is this: That in spite of all worldly opposition, God's holy ordinances shall be established again in the home, in the school and in the State for the good of the people; to carve as it were into the conscience of the nation the ordinances of the Lord, to which Bible and Creation bear witness, until the nation pays homage again to God." - Abraham Kuyper, 1897

Also check out
An All-encompassing Faith

 

[crhoades]

Nice review btw...

 

[RamistThomist]

Oh thanks, by the way, I was a credo baptist when I reviewed it.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Oh thanks, by the way, I was a credo baptist when I reviewed it.

I caught that. Was going to ask if you changed but didn't want to hijack the thread...

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Well done, Jacob!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Here's one of my favorite Kuyper quotes:

"Calvinism, on the contrary, has taught us that all liberal arts are gifts which God imparts promiscuously to believers and to unbelievers, yea, that, as history shows, these gifts have flourished even in a larger measure outside the holy circle."

-- Lectures on Calvinism, Calvinism and Art

 

[Ivan]

"a spur upon my mind and soul"

I love that imagery.

 

[Me Died Blue]

I have yet to read any Kuyper, but love the quotations I've seen attributed to him in various places. Where would be a recommended place to start?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I have yet to read any Kuyper, but love the quotations I've seen attributed to him in various places. Where would be a recommended place to start?

Kuyper is one of the giants of the faith and a man of remarkable talents: theologian, stateman, and more.

I recommend this biography of him, God's Renaissance Man: Abraham Kuyper by James Edward McGoldrick: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...2/002-6044206-0776805?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

Also, the Kuyper Centennial Reader is a good introduction to his writings: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802843212/002-6044206-0776805?v=glance

His Lectures on Calvinism and study of the Holy Spirit are par excellence: http://www.kuyper.org/kuyper/

 

[RamistThomist]

I have some amazing Kuyper quotes coming up when I get my computer back. BTW, have yall noticed that modern Americans Christians, tend to follow the thinking of Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and the French Revolution when it comes to the church in politics?

 

[RamistThomist]

My favorite Kuyper quote,

The Calvinist demands that all life be consecrated to His service in strict obedience. A religion confined to the closet, the cell, or the church, therefore, Calvin abhors...God is present in all life, with the influence of His omnipresent and almighty power, and no sphere of human life is conceivable in which religion does not maintain its demands that God shall be praised, that God's ordinances shall be observed and that every labora shall be permeated with its ora in fervent and ceaseless prayer. Where man may stand, whatever hhe may do, to whatever he may apply his handin agriculture, in commerce, in industry, or his mind, in the world of art and science, he is, in whatsoever he may be constantly standing before the face of his God, he is employed in the service of his God, he has strictly to obey his God, and above all, he is to aim at the glory of his God.

If this meant applying a distinctively Christian approach to politics, and the understanding that it will actually happen, could Roger Williams or any of his followers concur with Kuyper? The answer is a thundering no.

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I have some amazing Kuyper quotes coming up when I get my computer back. BTW, have yall noticed that modern Americans Christians, tend to follow the thinking of Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, and the French Revolution when it comes to the church in politics?

Yes. George Gillespies book Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty was a defense of WCF 23 and a refutation of Williams' excessive notion of "christian liberty". Williams is alluded to several times in the work. Yet ironically most Presbyterians follow Williams and not the confession. The American Presbyterian churches have even revised the confession to embrace his pluralism!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

My denomination officially holds to this Kuyperian statement by William Cunningham: "œIt is incumbent upon nations, as such, and civil rulers in their official capacity, or in the exercise of their legitimate control over civil matters, to aim at the promotion of the honor of God, the welfare of true religion, and the prosperity of the church of Christ."

 

[RamistThomist]

I meant to say this about the book--I think the author narrowly missed doing a great job. I really loved the idea of the book, but I never saw the author commending him for such. It seemed there was more criticism of Kuyper than was warranted. I also disagree with the author's handling of several sources.

Bottom Line: Get the book; great stuff, use it to write a better book o Kuyper. I plan on rereading it

 

[Me Died Blue]

Here is a wonderful reflection on the nature and purpose of art in all forms: "Standing by the ruins of this once so wonderfully beautiful creation, art points out to the Calvinist both the still visible lines of the original plan, and what is even more, the splendid restoration by which the Supreme Artist and Master-Builder will one day renew and enhance even the beauty of His original creation...The world of sounds, the world of forms, the world of tints, and the world of poetic ideas, can have no other source than God; and it is our privilege as bearers of His image, to have a perception of this beautiful world, artistically to reproduce, and humanly to enjoy it." -Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, 155-157

Thanks for the recommendations, Andrew, especially the link to Lectures on Calvinism online.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

You're welcome, Chris!

Another excellent quote!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Abraham Kuyper:

 

[Poimen]

I post the following in light of some of the statements above (correct me if I have made the wrong conclusion about what was said but...):

With all due respect, I firmly believe that Kuyper would have opposed theonomy. He was a sphere sovereigntist not a theocrat. Just look at the way he run Holland's government as Prime Minister.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I agree that Kuyper was no theonomist. Theonomy as a movement was not born until after he had died. As for whether he was a theocrat -- which is an altogether different issue -- on the one hand he argued that Christ is Lord of the State, which is a theocratic, not a pluralistic position; while on the other hand he rejected the term "theocracy," equating it with the Old Testament adminstration only, and while striving for a Christian society believed in a non-established church and an alliance among Christian churches against humanistic influences that included the Roman Catholic Church, thus the term "principled or pragmatic pluralist" might be an appropriate label for him. Had he been consistent with his own arguments about the Lordship of Christ over the State, he would have understood that theocracy, not pluralism, was the natural outworking of what he believed. Nevertheless, despite the Calvinistic genius shown in his Stone Lectures, he had a blind eye, I think, to the faults of pluralism.

More on his political views here.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I agree that Kuyper was no theonomist. Theonomy as a movement was not born until after he had died. As for whether he was a theocrat -- which is an altogether different issue -- on the one hand he argued that Christ is Lord of the State, which is a theocratic, not a pluralistic position; while on the other hand he rejected the term "theocracy," equating it with the Old Testament adminstration only, and while striving for a Christian society believed in a non-established church and an alliance among Christian churches against humanistic influences that included the Roman Catholic Church, thus the term "principled or pragmatic pluralist" might be an appropriate label for him. Had he been consistent with his own arguments about the Lordship of Christ over the State, he would have understood that theocracy, not pluralism, was the natural outworking of what he believed. Nevertheless, despite the Calvinistic genius shown in his Stone Lectures, he had a blind eye, I think, to the faults of pluralism.

More on his political views here.

A hundred times amen to Andrew. Very few theonomists that I have interviewed would have labled Kuyper a theonomist (although a good argument can be madet that his colleauge in arms, Groen van Prinsterer was theocratic).

His princlped pluralism can only work in a highly disciplined Reformed society. I just finished reading Dr Spykeman's essay advocating principled pluralism n God and Politics: Four Views. Suffice to say, and Andrew and Chris R. will agree with me on this, every other view represented (theonomy, National Confessionalism, Christian America) buries his essay.

For principled pluralism to work, certain values must be imposed on those who in some way do not share those values. Should fringe Satanic cults who practice human sacrifice be protected? If the pluralists answers no he denies his own position.

This much, it has seemed, should be obvious. Our pluralist brothers, however, would have us eschew any such prejudice toward Christianity´s values in the exercise of civil authority. At the First Consultation on Christ and Civil Government (held at Geneva College, 1987), the speaker for "œprincipled pluralism," Dr. Gordon Spykman, was asked during a time of public ques- tioning whether pluralism could be honestly and consistently main- tained "“ whether equal rights and protections could be granted to evety ftith-commitment generated among pagans. The specific question (and counter-example) with which he was presented concerned the ritual practices of Satanists. Would not pluralism, if true to its premises, be required to grant Satanists the right to practice human sacrifice in the name of their religious commitm- ent? Dr. Spykman surely saw that if he answered yes, his posi- tion would have been reduced to ethical absurdity. So instead of answering the question directly, he skirted it and would not take it seriously. The example was too impractical or hypothetical, dealing with at best a "œlunatic fringe" that might be found in any society. He did not deal with the challenge to the cogency of pluralism as realistic.

--Greg Bahnsen speaking about the Consultation of Christ and Civil Government.

But we're not finished:

On April 12, 1989, the pluralist attempt to skirt that dificult question lost all credibility and came face-to-face with the ugliness of pagan society. The front-page headlines of every major paper reported that authorities had dug up a number of mutilated hu- man corpses, the vicious results of the religious ritual practiced by a Mexican offshoot of the Santeria culti satanic sacrifices. The problem posed to Dr. Spykman is not simply a matter of hypo- thetical and tritling intellectual games. Real Satanists murder real people in real subservience to their real religious choices. Now then, should the civil magistrate respect this religious ritual of Santeria? Or should he rather in good (but morally prejudiced) conscience follow Christian values in giving a civil response to satanic sacri.tlce?

This next hammer-blow of a paragraph from No Other Standard destroys pluralism:

The libertarian-tainted spirit of our age tempts us toward an all-too-easy "œanswer" to this problem. Without due reflection we are tempted to reply that, because atl faith-commitments must be equally protected, the pluralist position could adjust the pun- ishment and restraint of satanists who are destroying the lives and liberty of those who do not share their particular ftith-commit- ment. That is, there is an implicit restriction in the pluralist equal-protection clause: viz., one may not use his own religiow liberty so as to infinge upon or impede the practice of another's religious libetiy. This reply does not an.wer the original question, howeveq it simply shifts the question to a more basic issue. Given the pluralist commitment to the equal-protection of all ftith-commitments, would he not need equally to protect those fh.iths which do not honor the restriction which was just enunciated here? Some religions do, and some religions do not. Apparently, the Santeria faith does not. Would the pluralist implicitly impose his Christian religious con- victions on the followers of Santeria by requiring them to dishonor their own religious convictions about human sacritlce and/or to dishonor their rejection of the restriction just stated? If he would, b too is "œprejudiced." If he would not, his position is morally bankrupt.

Kuyper, despite his sheer brilliance, was not consistent with his reformed theology on this point. This is the one fatal flaw in his otherwise monumental worldview.

[Edited on 6--12-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Abraham Kuyper was born on October 29, 1837.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Abraham Kuyper died on November 8, 1920.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

"Uilenspiegel, rarely proper, says of banqueting that the Reformed are not the sort to water down their wine. That's true. From the chocolate kettle and milk and water bottle arises no bold race of Calvinists." -- Abraham Kuyper

[Edited on 11-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Abraham Kuyper died 86 years ago today (November 8, 1920).

 

[caddy]

"He only is the real Calvinist, and may raise the Calvinistic banner, who in his own Soul, personally, has been struck by the Majesty of the Almighty, and yielding to the overpowering might of his eternal Love, has dared to proclaim this majestic love, over against Satan and the world, and the worldliness of his own heart, in the personal conviction of being chosen by God Himself, and therefore of having to thank Him and Him alone, for every grace everlasting."

Calvinism and Religion
Lectures on Calvinism, p 69.

 

[bookslover]

Abraham Kuyper died 86 years ago today (November 8, 1920).

Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield all died within months of each other, if I remember rightly.

He wrote a huge book on the subject of grace (or maybe the print's just real big [heh]). I wonder if it will ever be translated into English.

 

[caddy]

Interesting !

Nothing like C.S. Lewis, A.Huxley, J.F.Kennedy all dying on same day however ( Nov 22, 1963 ) and having a book written about it ... is it Andrew ?

Sorry Bookslover, I felt the need to "rile" Andrew up...

Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield all died within months of each other, if I remember rightly.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

I did recently of a couple of notable Puritans who were born within hours of each other. But I'll have to finish unpacking my library to find that reference.

 

[toddpedlar]

Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield all died within months of each other, if I remember rightly.

He wrote a huge book on the subject of grace (or maybe the print's just real big [heh]). I wonder if it will ever be translated into English.

You mean a really huge book? I've got "Particular Grace" by Kuyper, which is quite good, but it's not "huge". Do you perhaps mean his work "De Gemeene Gratie", on "common grace"? That one I think probably does qualify as 'huge', and I'm unaware of an English translation...