"Neo-Puritanism" vs. "Neo-Calvinism"?

[Stope]

some more free stuff
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/the_dooyeweerd_center.asp
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/rpp/paideia_books.asp

These are so helpful! Might I ask you: do you align yourself with this camp? If so how did you arrive there, and what do others think? Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?

 

[RamistThomist]

These are so helpful! Might I ask you: do you align yourself with this camp? If so how did you arrive there, and what do others think? Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?

When I became Reformed the nexus I was in was led by a highly skilled Kuyperian evangelist who brought dozens, if not near to a hundred young people into various local churches. And when I moved to another state, which said evangelist was already in, there was aggressive evangelistic campaigns and witnessing at abortion centers.

We did studies on Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism and Bahnsen's Van Til's Apologetics.

I am something of a Kuyperian, though I don't follow the movement slavishly. Which I will note below:

1. I think Dooyeweerd is absolutely correct on "Ground Motives," though he weakened on Scripture midway through his career (but FN Lee says he came back to a more orthodox view before he died).
2. I think Kuyper's original thrust is correct, but he was a political pluralist. He didn't believe in a Christian state. Of course, in his time period everyone was living off of Christian capital, so it didn't matter. In our world today, where Cultural Marxism reigns (and Leftist shooters are gunning Republicans in broad daylight), we can't make any such assumptions.
3. The "Northern" Kuyperian movement in America, centered around Toronto and Calvin college, is an utter disaster. I am not saying that Calvin College has apostasized yet, but they are close.
4. The Kuyperians who stayed in more orthodox denominations (PCA, OPC, etc) have done fine.
5. Almost all Kuyperians are amillennialists (which probably sends the Old Life crowd into panic attacks). I am not.

 

[MW]

Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?

The problems from the historic Calvinist perspective are discussed here: http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

 

[RamistThomist]

Why is the thrust we see from Kuyper not a thrust everywhere (I ask cause its so compelling)?

One simple answer is that they are usually Dutch and sometimes the Dutch (whom I love) can be insular. But I've seen fellow-Scots Irish do the same thing.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is Frame's critique of Dooyeweerd's disciples.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/FrameJohnAmsterdamPhilosophy1972.pdf

I don't entirely buy the criticism others made that these guys downplay piety. Some do, but it's not a necessary connection. Kuyper and Bavinck wrote movingly on these issues. And one can find evidence of "Vanilla Reformed" types who aren't as pious as we want them to be (not sure how to gauge that, though).

Some of Dooyeweerd's disciples might have troublesome views on the Covenant, but that might just be a Dutch thing in general, since a lot of non-Dooyeweerdian Dutch guys have unique views on the covenant (Schilder, Hoekesema).

 

[MW]

I would not say they "downplay piety;" it is just that the piety comes to be spread across a number of spheres, and the old church piety is spread very thin in the process.

 

[Pilgrim]

It's pretty obvious what side of the fence the creator of the chart is on.

And it's funny that he says that the Neo-Puritan emphasis is TULIP when one and possibly two of the examples of "sample leaders" that he gives are hypothetical universalists who wouldn't affirm it in the way that the average John Owen, A.W. Pink or R.C. Sproul fan would. Someone who doesn't really believe in particular redemption or else never really talks about it can hardly be said to have that as an emphasis.

If he wants to say that Neo-Puritans don't care about anything other than salvation, his examples there are also at least half wrong. I wonder, is only caring about salvation and neglecting the culture the reason why Albert Mohler has a worldview related podcast 5 days a week? More accurate examples of that would be John MacArthur, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the R2kers and maybe Mark Dever. (Saying that MacArthur isn't "reformed" is immaterial in a context where Platt, Driscoll, Carson and Grudem are the examples used.) He may want to say he wants to focus on living people, but MLJ is pretty much the fountainhead of the neo-Puritanism he wishes to criticize, albeit a form of it that isn't nearly Puritan enough for many of us here.

BTW, when liberals think of Christians who threaten their hegemony, do they think of Calvin College and Seminary, or do they think of SBTS or even MacArthur?

 

[RamistThomist]

BTW, when liberals think of Christians who threaten their hegemony, do they think of Calvin College and Seminary, or do they think of SBTS or even MacArthur?

I know for a fact they think every one of us on this board is a militant Rushdoony-ite.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is another angle to look at it:

There are "two" Kuypers. One is the common grace Kuyper and the other is the antithesis. The common grace can be seen in institutions like Calvin College/Seminary. They are going liberal. The antithesis can be seen in the presuppositional camp.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is a good intro to Dooyeweerd that doesn't have some of his later questionable ideas.
http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/RootsOfWesternCulture.pdf

 

[RamistThomist]

Regardless of where you end up on the neo-calvinism issue, give these lectures by Knudsen a go. Nowhere else in English will you get expositions of Vollenhoven and Stoker (the latter spent time in a British concentration camp).

 

[Stope]

Regardless of where you end up on the neo-calvinism issue, give these lectures by Knudsen a go. Nowhere else in English will you get expositions of Vollenhoven and Stoker (the latter spent time in a British concentration camp).

Thank you for these helpful links! I was able to get the Roots of Western Culture, but the Knudsen lectures arent yielding... Do you per chance have a direct link?

Mahalo plenty!

 

[RamistThomist]

https://students.wts.edu/resources/media.html?paramType=audio

Go to speakers and click on the search tab on the right, then drop down to Knudsen

 

[Stope]

3. The "Northern" Kuyperian movement in America, centered around Toronto and Calvin college, is an utter disaster. I am not saying that Calvin College has apostasized yet, but they are close.

These are the things that Im drawn to, not sure how "Kuyperian" they are:
---Moving away from the 2 act Gospel (Fall - Atonement), but the 4 act Gospel (Creation - Fall - Atonement - Restoration). I feel like I have been needing this full picture my entire life. Mainly they fact that the first act or Creation and especially the creation mandate and the importance of us being created in God's image, is so so so so compelling and now informs every square inch of my own life and now there is no sacred/secualr divide... What are your thoughts and who can I read more on this, and what would you warn me against?

If he wants to say that Neo-Puritans don't care about anything other than salvation, his examples there are also at least half wrong. I wonder, is only caring about salvation and neglecting the culture the reason why Albert Mohler has a worldview related podcast 5 days a week?

---I think the idea is more that MASS EVANGELISM is the essence of the Christian life, to snatch as many people from hell as possible, but Im not really sure... I do though get that sense prior to reading these neos that the Chrsitian Life was essentially grab as many people from the fires of hell and then wait it out... But then if thats all this life is its not very complelling nor does it appear why we were created... Thoughts?

 

[RamistThomist]

These are the things that Im drawn to, not sure how "Kuyperian" they are:
---Moving away from the 2 act Gospel (Fall - Atonement), but the 4 act Gospel (Creation - Fall - Atonement - Restoration). I feel like I have been needing this full picture my entire life. Mainly they fact that the first act or Creation and especially the creation mandate and the importance of us being created in God's image, is so so so so compelling and now informs every square inch of my own life and now there is no sacred/secualr divide... What are your thoughts and who can I read more on this, and what would you warn me against?


---I think the idea is more that MASS EVANGELISM is the essence of the Christian life, to snatch as many people from hell as possible, but Im not really sure... I do though get that sense prior to reading these neos that the Chrsitian Life was essentially grab as many people from the fires of hell and then wait it out... But then if thats all this life is its not very complelling nor does it appear why we were created... Thoughts?

I think Carson's book on Christ and Culture is worth looking at. In discussing Kuyper he made one very astute remark: if you divorce Kuyper's "transforming culture" from Reformed piety and doctrine, the result is sudden death.

Or if you want something meatier, go with Bavinck.

 

[jomawh]

I really don't agree with what goes where on this table. Kuyper began with the glory of God, necessarily tied to His sovereignty, and followed through the logic to necessarily conclude that all spheres, dominions, and subjects are subservient to the king. The "Neo-Puritan" view, as represented here, appears seems short-sighted and individualistic, focusing primarily upon personal experience with the "key storyline" being sin and salvation- it's Neo-Pietism with the five-points tattooed on.

The Puritans themselves would have equally held to personal piety and Christ's overriding lordship, the whole story (rather than stopping short at salvation), and would have been the first to write against limiting God's sovereignty to only salvation- that would have been particularly anathema.

Jon Edwards himself-

This new creation, which is the same with the work of redemption, is, in the most especial manner, spoken of as the work of Jesus: for he is ever mentioned as the great Redeemer and restorer. This work is committed to him: for this he has a full commission. It is left in his hands; all things are committed to him; all power in heaven and in earth is given him, that he may accomplish this work, and bring it to its most absolute perfection. To this end are subjected to him, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, and he is made head over all things; and to this end, the world to come, that is, all the affairs of that new creation, are put in subjection unto him: and he, with regard to all the transactions belonging to this new creation, that are written in the book of God, is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Christ built the house; he built all things, especially in this new creation; and therefore is God. These things are plainly asserted in Heb. iii. 3, 4. “For this man (rather this person) was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man: but he that built all things is God.” Thus, the work of redemption, which is both the greatest work of salvation, and the greatest work of creation, (the two kinds of works chiefly spoken of in Scripture as divine,) is accomplished by the Son of God. The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson Publishers, Inc; 2007) p. 506

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is what happens when you divorce Kuyper from historic Christian ethics.
http://forsclavigera.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-orthodox-christianity-some.html