Neo-Calvinism As Popularized by Kuyper
- Thread starter Quatchu
- Start date
- Status
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
More like specifically rejected by Kuyper.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True enough, but in The Ordinances of God (1873) he refutes its basic tenets.
Unoriginalname
Puritan Board Junior
From what it seems the 2k types seem to pit their view against Kuyper.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Where do you obtain that book?
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well put Dr. Clark.
darrellmaurina
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
