Resources Critiquing "Hyper-Covenantism"

[Alexander Suarez]

Looking for additional resources that critique what William Young (1918-2015) calls "hyper-covenantism" below in the first two stated theses:

Hyper-Covenantism, a synonym for Kuyper-Calvinism or Neo-Calvinism. As the name suggests, Hyper-Covenantism is an exaggeration of the historic Calvinist doctrine of God’s covenant with man
. . .
What is Hyper-Covenantism? . . . a set of theses, sometimes openly avowed by Neo-Calvinists and sometimes presupposed more or less unconsciously, but pervading Neo-Calvinist doctrine and practice. Kuyper himself is most certainly not to be charged with propounding or approving every one of the following Hyper-Covenantist theses, although the fundamental and central theses were contributed by him and the others have been developed, whether validly or invalidly, from Kuyper’s outlook. Seven theses may be formulated and expounded.
. . .
Thesis I: Covenant is a metaphysical category, under which all relations between man and God, man and man, and man and nature, may be subsumed.
. . .
Thesis II: The covenant relation between God and man was an essential element of man’s original state entailed by the creation of men in God’s image.

 

[jwright82]

Covenant Confusion

By Richard Phillips Thus says the Lord, "Stand by the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16

www.alliancenet.org

Hope this helps.

 

[RamistThomist]

Young is right to critique Neo-Calvinism, but some of his particular assertions are suspect. I don't see Schilder holding to presumptive election, nor would I call Schilder a follower of Kuyper. I've listed some problems with the post-Kuyper movement, if only indirectly.

Grounded in Heaven (Allen)

Allen, Michael. Grounded in Heaven. William B. Eerdmans. “This world is not my home/I’m just a passing through.” Is there a way to maintain a robust view of heaven as our telos wh…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Four Views on Heaven

Wittmer, Michael. ed. Four Views on Heaven. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022. Of the Zondervan Counterpoints volumes, this is one of their better ones. It addresses one of the most practical of s…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts

Greidanus, Sidney. Sola Scriptura: Problems and Principles in Preaching Historical Texts. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001. “Dare to be a Daniel!” What is the purpose of preaching?&nbs…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[jwright82]

Should Reformed Theology Move Beyond Covenant Theology? - The Heidelblog

I. SUMMARY In a post (HT: Aquila Report) dated Friday 9 August, Bill Evans raises the question whether there is in Reformed theology what he calls "pervasive covenantalism" or an over emphasis or imbalanced emphasis in Reformed theology on covenant. He points to persistent internecine arguments...

heidelblog.net

Post along these lines by our own R Scott Clark.

 

[jwright82]

Beginning at the End of All Things: Abraham Kuyper’s and Klaas Schilder’s Eschatological Visions of Culture

“Kuyperians were pluralists before pluralism was cool,” writes James K. A. Smith.1 Indeed, neo-Calvinists in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) display a marked fondness for stressing the possibility and imperative of shared cultural labor between Christians and non-Christians in...

www.thegospelcoalition.org

On Kuyper and Schilder. I agree with Jacob here and the article at least is on their disagreements. I don't think Schilder held to presumptive regeneration either. I noticed the article you posted finally, missed it the first read through. I agree with some of it, though I doubt his criticisms of Dooyeweerd and Van Til are completely helpful and I noticed some problems with his linking their names to certain ideas or people. I'm not sure why he seemed to under thesis one, to prefer Gordon Clark's view or something "akin to......" His view as the "historic Reformed view" over and against Van Til and to a lesser degree Dooyeweerd. But that might get us off course. Both men held to a form of the Creator/creature distinction (less Reformed in Dooyeweerd's case) and it has been debated at length on here how close Clark was to it. So that surprised me.
He also, and I would love R Scott Clark's thoughts on this, seems to be describing Federal Vision theology without naming it (as far as I remember). He is clearly going after some disciples of Kuyper, maybe more on the left.
All that said, whatever genealogy he's proposing (right or wrong), his criticisms of the consequences of the thesis' seem pretty good.
"Hyper-covenantalism" is clearly shown to be bad, I just wonder if perhaps he's being too broad in his assessment. Everyone of the names he seems to link to it could be individually debated for accuracy (Dooyeweerd, Van Til, Kuyper, and Schilder for instance). But what about Federal Vision theology? Those other names I posted are closer to home for Orthodox Reformed people, so who's he really going after? Wolterstorf or James KA Smith maybe? But who in our Reformed world takes their political or social theories seriously?
So I'm probably just guilty of reading it too quickly but those are my initial impressions.

 

[MW]

Cornelis Pronk, A Goodly Heritage, was helpful for filling out the history. His footnotes give a number of extra resources.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Cornelis Pronk, A Goodly Heritage, was helpful for filling out the history. His footnotes give a number of extra resources.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

The article by William Young in the OP is very interesting. One of the things he notes is how Kuyper's followers are often more problematic than what he noted (even though he made some pretty bad calls). I worried about the same with Keller where his disciples are far afield of any direction he was purposefully pulling but are not at odds with his actual problems in presentation.

Many progressive neo-Calvinists have the same conception of "redemption" as N.T. Wright. Namely, they seem to think that all Cration is to be redeemed (the arts, culture, etc) and that the Church is only "phase 1" in God's plan of redemption in order to accomplish the larger goal.

 

[RamistThomist]

All that said, whatever genealogy he's proposing (right or wrong), his criticisms of the consequences of the thesis' seem pretty good.
"Hyper-covenantalism" is clearly shown to be bad, I just wonder if perhaps he's being too broad in his assessment. Everyone of the names he seems to link to it could be individually debated for accuracy (Dooyeweerd, Van Til, Kuyper, and Schilder for instance). But what about Federal Vision theology? Those other names I posted are closer to home for Orthodox Reformed people, so who's he really going after? Wolterstorf or James KA Smith maybe?

My guess--and that's all it is--is he is going after the guys who focus on transforming the arts while denigrating worship--and that is a legitimate criticism of some Neo-Calvinists.

As to the covenant, Kuyper tended to hold to some form of presumptive regeneration (but only for those who are truly elect in baptism, for anyone else the baptism doesn't really count). Schilder saw that as spiritually toxic and said the promises of the covenant go out to all. Kuyper said they didn't. To that Schilder said everyone is head-for-head in the covenant, and the Covenant is "all or nothing." Federal Vision guys took that idea and ran with it. Schilder, though, didn't reject sola fide, to his credit.

 

[jwright82]

My guess--and that's all it is--is he is going after the guys who focus on transforming the arts while denigrating worship--and that is a legitimate criticism of some Neo-Calvinists.

As to the covenant, Kuyper tended to hold to some form of presumptive regeneration (but only for those who are truly elect in baptism, for anyone else the baptism doesn't really count). Schilder saw that as spiritually toxic and said the promises of the covenant go out to all. Kuyper said they didn't. To that Schilder said everyone is head-for-head in the covenant, and the Covenant is "all or nothing." Federal Vision guys took that idea and ran with it. Schilder, though, didn't reject sola fide, to his credit.

Yeah, thanks. It's a very legitimate criticism of Neo-Calvinists. When one of your own (James KA Smith, who went off the deep end with his view on homosexuality) criticizes the movement for that, than you got problems.
Yeah Schilder's relationship with FV is complex and you're right about sola fide. I guess they were both wrong, but why do you think seeing they both came out of something (doctrine of some kind) in opposite directions?

 

[MW]

I worried about the same with Keller where his disciples are far afield of any direction he was purposefully pulling but are not at odds with his actual problems in presentation.

Rich, I haven't really kept up to date with the redemptionists, so you can speak to this better than I can. I suppose this represents the cultural side of the Kuyperians. The main problem I have with that is the hand-in-glove approach, which means you can take anything in the culture and Christianise it. Its relativism ends up splintering in all directions. Kuyper's own view was more controlled in that there was still a strong Christian culture which bound it to the standards of the moral law and traditional Christian views of holiness.

Pronk's book is more concerned with the ecclesial side and what effects this has on practice in terms of covenant nurture and conversion.