Neocalvinist Model?

[py3ak]

I found this post very fascinating.

The concluding paragraph especially grabbed my attention.

En segundo lugar, consideramos que su análisis crítico de la concepción católica romana del motivo naturaleza-gracia está hecho exclusivamente desde la perspectiva de la teología neocalvinista. Se puede decir que uno de los principios fundamentales del neocalvinismo es, en su afán por secularizar la Iglesia, la negación del motivo naturaleza-gracia y la propuesta de su sustitución por el motivo creación-caída-redención. Es cierto que De Chirico señala que su crítica está hecha en la perspectiva del neocalvinismo, pero, a su vez, sería necesario también precisar (lo hacemos nosotros) que no hay que confundir neocalvinismo con teología reformada clásica. Los Reformadores y las Confesiones de fe de la Reforma eran por completo ajenos a esta alergia contemporánea por el motivo naturaleza-gracia, sobrevenida a partir de finales del siglo XIX a raíz de la teología del pastor, teólogo y jefe de estado holandés, Abraham Kuyper. Se puede criticar, desde una perspectiva reformada, la comprensión católica romana del motivo naturaleza-gracia sin por ello llegar a negar el motivo completamente. Aunque no suele verse convenientemente, esta negación es de una importancia teológica extraordinaria y ha introducido una serie de graves tensiones en prácticamente todos los órdenes de la teología reformada, conocida como la teología de la alianza. Habría, sin duda, mucho que hablar en este sentido, pero tampoco es este el momento, más adecuado para hacerlo.

What do people here think? For convenience, a rough translation of the most intriguing phrases.

It can be said that one of the fundamental principles of neocalvinism, in its zeal to secularize the church, is the denial of the nature-grace theme and the proposal to substitute for it the creation-fall-redemption theme.

...neocalvinism ought not be confused with classic Reformed theology.

The Reformers and the Confesions of faith from the Reformation are quite distant from the contemporary allergy to the nature-grace theme....

From a Reformed perspective, the Roman Catholic understanding of the nature-grace theme can be criticized, without on that account denying the theme altogether.

He also asserts that such a denial has implications for covenant theology.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No hablo Espanol, ese!

 

[Scott1]

What do we understand by the term "nature-grace theme?"

or, perhaps,

"Que quiere decir 'nature-grace theme' en ingles inteligible?"

 

[Christusregnat]

Hay un mono que es muy differente. El mono es muy pobre porque no tiene zapatos. Hay una vaca. La vaca es muy rica proque tiene una casa.

iMira este gringo loco! No me digas que eres vaca, porque no se permite las vacas tomar la cerveza.

 

[Marrow Man]

I am not understanding how a "creation-fall-redemption" theme threatens to secularize the church.

 

[Jon Peters]

I don't understand the quotes, but I'm wondering if the target is Westminster California?

 

[py3ak]

While this almost certainly does not exhaust Mr. Ruiz's meaning, I think at the basic level nature-grace means that they are two different things. A creation-fall-redemption theme would come in handy for secularizing the church if it served to blur the distinction between nature and grace. But this is supposition on my part - that's why I'm asking what people think, and why I rendered the critical phrases into English.

I suppose a Spaniard might target WSC, but it seems like he'd have targets closer to home, as well.

 

[Christusregnat]

A creation-fall-redemption theme would come in handy for secularizing the church if it served to blur the distinction between nature and grace.

Perhaps this is a point of discussion, but depending on what one imports into the term secularization, then it could be argued that the Church of Christ, from its present vantage point, must become more secularized. If by secularization, we mean calling the entirety of this age's spheres of live to obey their Creator and God. For instance, I believe Scripture requires a return to Christendom, and the abandonment of Anabaptist political theories, such as separation of Church and State and the invalidity of OT laws for modern civil powers.

If by secularization, we import the meaning of violating God's laws by promoting love of the world and its lust, then no man in his sound mind can support such a movement.

Cheers,

 

[py3ak]

To clarify, the part I would most like responses about is not the secularization of the church, but the accuracy of the difference proposed between the neocalvinist and the classic Reformed model, what are the implications of thinking in terms of creation-fall-redemption instead of nature-grace, and whether it's possible to think in both.

 

[TeachingTulip]

To clarify, the part I would most like responses about is not the secularization of the church, but the accuracy of the difference proposed between the neocalvinist and the classic Reformed model, what are the implications of thinking in terms of creation-fall-redemption instead of nature-grace, and whether it's possible to think in both.

These observartions seem almost backwards, but then, I am not sure I understand what is being said at all. For instance:

What does the author mean by "nature-grace?"

That grace is common to natural men?

That revelation is found through natural law?

What?

 

[Prufrock]

Matthew Winzer referenced an article a while back here on the PB by William Young, "Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism," which appeared in two parts in WTJ 36 no. 1 and no. 2 (1973/1974), which I will now re-reference. Young describes aspects of the difference between the traditional, Reformed nature-grace distinction and the 4-stage Neo schema. It is worth reading.

 

[Philip]

Creation-fall-redemption-consummation does seem to be a classic Calvinist eschatological picture, but applying it in place of the nature-grace distinction may not be the best thing. Instead, I think we ought to see the nature-grace distinction through the lens of CFRC. We need to think in terms of both CFRC (as the pattern for history) because . . . well . . . it is the biblical picture. I think that many of the Puritans, given their postmil views of eschatology, would heartily agree.

We also have to understand the historical origin of Neocalvinism as a response to the Hegelian eschatological picture. In Hegelian thought, all of history is a surging forward through conflict to achieve absolute Geist--a state where all distinctions are gone. Neocalvinism countered by making the conflict between sin and God the driving force of history where eventually, harmony will be achieved when God brings all things under His dominion.

I daresay that this picture, as a Christian view of history, has a lot to commend it. The nature-grace dichotomy has a problem in that the danger is to put the two in conflict. Neocalvinist eschatology may be useful in helping us to find a synthesis between the two where they remain distinct yet fundamentally linked.

Neocalvinism, I daresay, is a branch of classic reformed theology, like its close cousin, Van Tillian presuppositionalism.

 

[VictorBravo]

It sounds like he is using classifications derived from Dooyeweerd. I found a summary discussion of these notions here.

I'm not really up on this, but I gather from that the "creation-fall-redemption" idea is older than the "nature-grace" idea. The nature-grace idea was a synthesis of Greek thought into scripture, at least as it developed in the Roman Church prior to the Reformation.

Then the Reformation tried and largely succeeded in excising the Greek ideas (such as the notion that matter or nature is necessarily evil and the abstract is good). Time went on, and the later Reformed and larger Evangelical community started buying into this Greek error again.

Where I'm confused (my Spanish is weak to be sure) is that it seems like he is inverting things by saying that the neocalvinists are innovating by trying to push things back to the older way of thinking. That's where I stumble, because I think the correction of the nature-grace idea and the harmonization of it with creation-fall-redemption is what the Reformation was all about.

If he is saying that the Neocalvinists are trying to replace the Reformed view of nature-grace, then I'd agree, it creates a tension. Creation-fall-redemption at the expense of nature-grace (properly understood) is old-testament judaism without additional revelation, or some variant.

 

[Prufrock]

I am not understanding how a "creation-fall-redemption" theme threatens to secularize the church.

Tim, I would submit that the neo-Calvinist scheme, by elevating the idea of Covenant to the level of the most fundamental relationship between God and Man in creation (rather than as an extra relationship superadded) and by thus all but eliminating the distinction between the realms of nature (or the natural world/relationship) and grace (the superadded relationship) -- in doing so, the Neo-Calvinist either downplays soteriology or elevates the realm of nature so that art, politics, sciences, literature, employment, etc. are just as equally "redeemed" as the church or men. In this manner, the church is secularized.

 

[Sven]

¿Quién es De Chirico?

 

[Prufrock]

It sounds like he is using classifications derived from Dooyeweerd. I found a summary discussion of these notions here.

I'm not really up on this, but I gather from that the "creation-fall-redemption" idea is older than the "nature-grace" idea. The nature-grace idea was a synthesis of Greek thought into scripture, at least as it developed in the Roman Church prior to the Reformation.

Then the Reformation tried and largely succeeded in excising the Greek ideas (such as the notion that matter or nature is necessarily evil and the abstract is good). Time went on, and the later Reformed and larger Evangelical community started buying into this Greek error again.

Where I'm confused (my Spanish is weak to be sure) is that it seems like he is inverting things by saying that the neocalvinists are innovating by trying to push things back to the older way of thinking. That's where I stumble, because I think the correction of the nature-grace idea and the harmonization of it with creation-fall-redemption is what the Reformation was all about.

If he is saying that the Neocalvinists are trying to replace the Reformed view of nature-grace, then I'd agree, it creates a tension. Creation-fall-redemption at the expense of nature-grace (properly understood) is old-testament judaism without additional revelation, or some variant.

Vic, if I may offer a suggestion without seeming too bold -- there is certainly *an* understanding of "creation-fall-redemption" that is old: as old as theology itself. Nevertheless, the Neo-Calvinist paradigm is offering something new and different. The traditional Reformed understanding of man having a natural relationship to God (as determined by the moral law and his role as creature to the Creator), and a special relationship to God (as determined by a superadded covenant) has been wholly abandoned and replaced by a new, Metaphysical concept of covenant (referred to in the Young article above as hyper-covenantalism) and its creation-fall-redemption scheme.

 

[ADKing]

See also this excellent article critiquing neo-Calvinism (in English )
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf

 

[Christusregnat]

the Neo-Calvinist either downplays soteriology or elevates the realm of nature so that art, politics, sciences, literature, employment, etc. are just as equally "redeemed" as the church or men.

You forgot time.

 

[py3ak]

¿Quién es De Chirico?

Un evangélico italiano. Es autor de un libro que forma el punto de partida por esta serie de artículos acerca de los evangélicos y el aggiornamento.

Esto lo explica.

 

[py3ak]

So one of the issues in discussion has to do with whether the covenant of works (probably renamed) is concurrent with creation? Do you see that as the watershed issue in this regard, Paul?

 

[VictorBravo]

Vic, if I may offer a suggestion without seeming too bold -- there is certainly *an* understanding of "creation-fall-redemption" that is old: as old as theology itself. Nevertheless, the Neo-Calvinist paradigm is offering something new and different. The traditional Reformed understanding of man having a natural relationship to God (as determined by the moral law and his role as creature to the Creator), and a special relationship to God (as determined by a superadded covenant) has been wholly abandoned and replaced by a new, Metaphysical concept of covenant (referred to in the Young article above as hyper-covenantalism) and its creation-fall-redemption scheme.

Paul, please be as bold as necessary. My understanding of these developing issues is pretty rudimentary and full of gaps.

 

[Sven]

I don't understand the quotes, but I'm wondering if the target is Westminster California?

I highly doubt that the target is WSC, since they are critical of "las neo-calvinistas." And might agree somewhat with this article.

I actually agree with him for the most part here: "Se puede criticar, desde una perspectiva reformada, la comprensión católica romana del motivo naturaleza-gracia sin por ello llegar a negar el motivo completamente. Aunque no suele verse convenientemente, esta negación es de una importancia teológica extraordinaria y ha introducido una serie de graves tensiones en prácticamente todos los órdenes de la teología reformada, conocida como la teología de la alianza." From what I've seen during my time at Kuyper College there were plenty of "graves tensiones" emerging especially in the doctrines of soteriology. Redemption for some people there, also included the idea of going green and joining the environmentalist cause, fighting for social justice, boycotting Walmart, and so-on. Any concept of a distincion de naturaleza-gracia was nearly demonized there.

Here I think Luther's la teologia de la cruz can be quite helpful in our understanding of either naturaleza-gracia o creacion-caida-redencion. It is only through suffering and the cross that we can rightly understand either of these themes. Nature-grace and creation fall redemption mean nothing if not seen in the light of the work of Christ. It is when we start substituting other things in place of the work of Christ that we get ourselves into trouble in either of these themes.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

See also this excellent article critiquing neo-Calvinism (in English )
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf

There are some good things in the article, but the author paints Neo-Calvinists with an overly broad brush and, I believe, stereotypes them unfairly. He seems to imply that the intent of Kuyperian Neo-Calvinism is good, but its application is corrupted. I would agree that is true for some churches and some pastors, but certainly not all. Not all Neo-Calvinists, for example, place cultural change above religion. And it is impossible to lump all Neo-Calvinists into a group that advocates "experimental spirituality." Some no doubt err in that direction, but it is wrong to label the entire group that way.

As I read his essay the more I found myself agreeing with the Neo-Calvinist philosophy as he presents it. At least in its pure form...

 

[AltogetherLovely]

A creation-fall-redemption theme would come in handy for secularizing the church if it served to blur the distinction between nature and grace.

I certainly can't pin the elements that cause it, but I was always very uncomfortable in churches or environments where Creation-Fall-Redemption is repeated like a mantra.

At Dordt College (my alma mater), I heard the phrase many times per day for 4 years. There was a very clear line evident. The individuals and churches who could play only that one note were, inevitably, extremely liberal in both politics and religion, with their priorities being in that order.

It was mentioned a few times by the conservative profs and churches in the area (such as they were), but there was a very clear linear relationship established: the liberalism of an entity (person or church) was in direct proportion to the frequency of saying "Creation, Fall, Redemption."

On a side note, we ought to know that anything abbreviated CFR is no good

 

[VictorBravo]

On a side note, we ought to know that anything abbreviated CFR is no good

Right. The Code of Federal Regulations is frightening.

 

[Marrow Man]

See also this excellent article critiquing neo-Calvinism (in English )
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf

Adam, that is one of the better articles that I've read in a while. The author even gives a tip of the hat to some of the original Marrow Men (the Erskines), in this quote where Bavinck mentions the experiential nature of their sermons:

Here we have an important element which is largely lacking among us. We miss this spiritual soul-knowledge. It seems we no longer know what sin and grace, guilt and forgiveness, regeneration and conversion are. We know these things in theory, but we no longer know them in the awful reality of life.

 

[ADKing]

Adam, that is one of the better articles that I've read in a while. The author even gives a tip of the hat to some of the original Marrow Men (the Erskines), in this quote where Bavinck mentions the experiential nature of their sermons:

Glad you all enjoyed it. I found it very edifying too. It makes me think more carefully of my own preaching and pray that it does proceed out of experience every sabbath.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

What about Boston's 4-fold state? Creation, Fall, Grace, Glory. Any connection or relevance to this discussion?

 

[Philip]

It seems that the Puritans had a concept this with their idea of created man, fallen man, regenerate man, and glorified man, so we can't say that CFRC was a completely new concept.

Personally, I would say that the two concepts are capable of synthesis.

 

[Peairtach]

See also this excellent article critiquing neo-Calvinism (in English )
http://www.westminsterconfession.org/Recovering_Experimental_Religion.pdf

This article makes a lot of good points.

How Kuyper came up with presumptive regeneration beats me? There is a distinction between the righteous and wicked among the Israelite covenant people throughout the OT.

The evangelical must come before the social, although the social should flow out of the evangelical. You can't have sanctified institutions and societies without sanctified people. The first thing is evangelism and the raising of children properly, under the sound of the Gospel and with godly education.

Nevertheless, the concerns of the neo-Calvinists should be taken on board, in their proper place.