For as all prosperity flows from his goodness, so adversity is either the rod with which he corrects our sins, or the test of our faith and patience.
–John Calvin, commentary on Genesis 32.
Schaaf and Calvin
I was struck when reading a portion of Philip Schaaf’s The Principle of Protestantism. Schaaf defends the Protestant view of Justification by quoting a section of Calvin’s dispute with Osiander in the Institutes.[1] Osiander’s poses the following question: “…whether God leaves as they were by nature those whom he justifies, changing none of their vices.” Calvin responds with confidence: “This is exceedingly easy to answer: as Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable–namely, righteousness (justification)[2] and sanctification.” Though Calvin concludes that “there is in justification no place for works,” nevertheless, Calvin is not in any way concerned with separating both acts of God’s free grace.
It seems that Calvin’s response in this matter is similar to his critique of Luther’s view of the sacraments, whereby, Christ is ubiquitous in the Eucharist. Since Christ cannot be torn and be “with, in, and under” the bread and wine, in the same manner, it is impossible to sharply divide his graces.
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. I. Ed. John McNeill. Louisville, KT. Westminster John Knox Press, 732.
[2] Schaaf’s translation uses “justification.” Is this a faulty translation? If so, is there a distinction between “righteousness” and “justification?”
Lutheran and Reformed traditions…
When I studied Reformation History in seminary, Dr. Frank James was always clear in defining the distinctions that arose during the Reformation. He was always careful to differentiate the various traditions. One clear distinction was the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Calvin became the patron saint of Reformational theology, whereas Luther took another direction, thus establishing a Lutheran tradition that continues to this day.
What is unique about Lutheranism is its rigid divide between law and gospel, its understanding of the Eucharist (what some scholars call “consubstantiation,” though Lutherans generally do not like that language due to its philosophical connotations), and its two-kingdom model. The Reformed community has recognized that the disputes between Calvinists and Lutherans in the last four centuries are genuine disputes, in light of the vast theological differences between the two traditions. It must be stressed, however, that in some respects Reformational theology and Lutheran theology share some similar concerns. One can think of their opposition to the unsacramental theology of the Anabaptists, and the pernicious Roman doctrine of penance and purgatory. Though there are some similarities, some in the Reformed community have assumed that there is almost universal agreement between these two traditions. As a result, there has arisen a form of pan-confessionalism. Dr. Mark Garcia addresses pan-confessionalism in his article in the following manner:
…pan–confessional phenomenon is an effort to offer a theological response to problems or proposals from the perspective of what two or more confessional traditions hold in common, accenting areas of agreement and minimizing (and sometimes denying) areas of disagreement (see No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? by Mark Garcia).
Advocates of pan-confessionalism are more than willing to blur the differences of both traditions. The underlying motivation behind this desire for confessional unity is not catholicity (that would be a fine reason) but a distinct definition of justification. One defender of pan-confessionalism argued that to attempt to find any differences on the doctrine of justification in these traditions is highly questionable; another wrote that Lutheran and Reformed are in full agreement on justification and faith alone (No Reformed Doctrine of Justification? ). In a reactionary manner, these scholars–in order to fight the recent scholarship on Lutheran and Reformed differences on justification– have essentially abandoned Reformed formulations for Lutheran ones, thus undermining their own tradition they claim to cherish.
As examples of how Lutheranism has won the day in these circles, these scholars deny Christ’s active work through His church to subdue culture to the glory of the Father (this stems from the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms); they also deny the unity of law and gospel through Biblical revelation, hence not allowing “evangelical obedience” to be an integral part or even secondary necessity to saving faith.
While catholic creeds are essential unifying propositions of the Church universal, pan-confessionalism denies the existing differences of particular traditions, thus erasing lines that ought never to be erased.
A Brief Study of Calvin’s Exposition of I John 1:9 and I John 2:2, Part 2
I John 2:2
The controversy over the extent of the atonement emerges in I John 2:2. The passage reads in context: “My little children, these things I write to you in order that you might not sin. But if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not only concerning our sins, but also concerning the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:1-2). John’s words beginning in chapter one is a reminder that sin can be forgiven. Once again, John reminds the reader of the purpose of the book: “that you might not sin.” But if a Christian should sin, John provides the solution. As Calvin notes:
…he (John) immediately adds a second clause, that when we sin we have an advocate…this confirms…that we are very far from being perfectly righteous, nay, that we contract new guilt daily, and that yet there is a remedy for reconciling us to God, if we flee to Christ…the hope of salvation.[1]
But how far and to what extent is this advocacy made?[2] Christ, the great sacrifice, sanctifies us, propitiates for us, and advocates on our behalf, but the latter clause is the troubling statement for those who argue for a particular atonement. The clause reads that these benefits are applied to us, but not to us only, but also applied to the sins of the whole world. Calvin writes that this clause serves to “assure the faithful that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.”[3] Calvin raises the immediate question: “how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?” The French theologian proceeds to deny the possibility that salvation is extended to the reprobate. Calvin declares that one solution is to pronounce that Christ “suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect.”[4] Though this solution may be applicable to some texts, Calvin does not believe it applies to this particular text; rather, Calvin prefers to understand the universal language as indicating a “benefit common to the whole Church.”[5] Hence, the words “all” and “whole” are not applied to the reprobate, but “designates those who should believe as well as those who were scattered through various parts of the world.”[6]
Strengths, Weaknesses, and Usefulness
Calvin’s theological view in this brief analysis of his interpretation, reveals that the Geneva commentator ascribed great power to humanity’s sinful condition, while at the same time ascribing even greater power to the Deliverer of sin, Christ Jesus. Implicit in these two passages-and explicit in his exposition of the entire Bible-is a commitment to the efficacy of Christ’s work on behalf of His own Church.
Calvin’s greatest weakness is not his own. He was incapable of providing a richer background to the texts due to the limited amount of knowledge and research in those areas. Nevertheless, Calvin’s insatiable commitment to special revelation provides the Church with one of the most articulate expositions of God and Redemption.
His strengths lie in many areas, but most significantly, in his sober assessment of the human heart.[7] For Calvin, the solution was not found in the Papacy-which he so strongly rebuked-but in the Christ, the righteous one. Pastors, scholars, and laypersons alike, will find Calvin’s commentary of I John enriching, encouraging, and timeless.
[1] Calvin, pgs.170-171.
[2] Calvin-in typical 16th century Reformation style-chastises the Papacy for “burying the idea of Christ’s advocacy on our behalf. Pg. 172.
[3] Ibid. 173.
[4] Ibid. 173.
[5] Ibid. 173.
[6] Ibid. 173. This argument is commonly known as the “geographical argument.” It was commonly held by other Reformers.
[7] Calvin once referred to the human heart as an “idol factory.”
A Brief Study of Calvin’s Exposition of I John 1:9 and I John 2:2, Part 1
The great Reformed theologian of the 16th century, John Calvin, approximates the apex of Western Theology with his noble and insightful commentary series. In the distinct absence of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, penned by Saint John, Calvin wrote prolifically in sixty-five books of the Scriptures. In this brief study, the author wishes to expound on two key texts interpreted by Calvin.
Calvin’s argument for I John[1] is that above all, it is more than John’s doctrinal statement; rather it is “doctrines mixed with exhortations.”[2] The inevitable conclusion of I John is that doctrinal orthodoxy leads to love for the brothers.[3]
There are at least two texts in Calvin’s commentary that represent major questions for theological studies. These texts are: I John 1:9[4] and I John 2:2.[5]
I John 1:9
Calvin addresses one of the most comforting statements in all Scriptures. John writes that: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This conditional promise is grounded on the character of God. The “God who promises,” writes Calvin “is true and just.”[6] The condition however, does not stem from God’s character, rather from man’s infidelity. This text does not make an unconditional promise, but it assumes a synergistic work between God and man. As Calvin asserts, “…justice or righteousness here depends on fidelity, and both are annexed to the promise.”[7] The condition for forgiveness was established because God “bound himself to us by His word.”[8] He would have been perfectly just if He had exercised His divine wrath on sinful humanity.
The idea of confession (eva.n o`mologw/men ta.j a`marti,aj h`mw/n) becomes necessary because the Christian is “surrounded with flesh”[9] and is always in need of being reformed from unrighteousness. According to Calvin, unless one confesses his sins, he will “carry a hell within.”[10] If confession is no longer a part of the Christian activity, “hell reigns,” and there is no peace with God. But when confession is made, it leads to cleansing. The cleansing that comes through confession brings about a twofold fruit: “that God being reconciled by the sacrifice of Christ, forgives us,–and that He renews and reforms us.”[11]
This individual confession and fruits thereof, is never to be the only focus of Scriptures, since Paul in both Colossians (1:22) and Ephesians (5:27) apply this same principle to the Holy Church.[12] Both individual man and the glorious bride of Christ confess his/her sins so that cleansing may occur and that the entire Church might be without spot or wrinkle on that Day.
[1] Carson, D.A., and D. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, second edn. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 672. Carson and Moo argue that on the basis of the many parallels between the gospel of John and I John, the reader can be assured that the same John authored both books.
[2] Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume XXII, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999). Reprinted, pg. 156.
[3] Carson and Moo testify to this truth in I John when they write that I John “was meant to be a pastoral letter to a congregation.” A pastoral -it may be assumed-is to have direct affect on how people ought to live. Carson, D.A., and D. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, second edn. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pg.669.
[4] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. All verses are translated by the author, unless otherwise noted.
[5] …and he is the propitiation concerning our sins, and not only concerning our sins, but also concerning the sins of the whole world.
[6] Calvin, 168.
[7] Ibid. 168.
[8] Ibid. 168.
[9] Ibid. 169.
[10] Ibid. 167.
[11] Ibid. 168.
[12] My main point here is that the Scriptures is both “catholic” and “individual.”
A Prayer for the Hearing of the Word
Grant, Almighty God, that as You shine on us by Your word, we may not be blind at midnight, nor wilfully seek darkness, and thus lull our minds asleep: but may we be roused daily by Your words, and may we stir up ourselves more and more to fear Your name and thus present ourselves and all our pursuits, as a sacrifice to You, that You may peaceably rule, and perpetually dwell in us, until You gather us to Your celestial habitation, where there is reserved for us eternal rest and glory through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.[1]
[1] A prayer from John Calvin concerning the Word of God.
Calvinism growing in the Southern Baptist Convention…
One step in the right direction. Thanks to the great work of Al Mohler.
LifeWay Research, which conducted the study, found that recent SBC seminary graduates who identify themselves as Calvinist conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their peers who are not Calvinist. The report also found that although Calvinistic churches baptized fewer persons each year, their baptism rates were virtually identical to that of non-Calvinistic churches.
An Analysis of Kuyper’s Lecture: Calvinism a Life System, Part 3
How Shall We Then Live: Concluding Remarks on Predestinarianism and Christian Living from Kuyper’s Lectures
The Calvinistic world-and-life-view is undergirded by one principal theological dogma: God is sovereign over the affairs of men. This dogmatic assertion carries over to the realm of Soteriology. It is in the doctrine of salvation that Calvinism is mostly known. Far from a mere abstract doctrinal proposition, the sovereignty of God in election and predestination furnishes the Kuyperian worldview with plenty of theological ammunition. Since God is the protagonist in the Calvinistic worldview, then He must be preeminent in developing any approach to living the Christian faith.
Kuyper wishes to emphasize that Calvinism is not to be confused with an ethereal doctrine left for the armchair theologian. Rather, as he asserts, “Calvinism has everywhere left…its trace in social and political, in scientific and aesthetic life…”[1] Calvinism belongs to the people, not simply to the magistrates. It is a doctrine oriented around Christian living. It is the beginning and the end of Christianity. It is the beginning because God initiates a work of grace in each of His chosen ones and it is the end because God in His sovereignty carries His own people through life and to ultimate glory. As Kuyper notes:
This all- embracing predestination, the Calvinist places, not in the hand of man, and still less in the hand of a blind natural force, but in the hand of Almighty God, Sovereign Creator and Possessor of heaven and earth.[2]
This sovereignty over all can only serve as a motivating factor in the Christian activity. The Christian is to defend boldly his Apostolic Creed in an immoral society, lest it loses it honor.[3] Calvinism served as an inspiring call to missiological zeal in previous centuries and must continue to encourage and embolden the Church to march forward as Christian soldiers and ambassadors of her King. The great Dutch theologian well understood the consequences of a weak Church when he wrote: “…Christianity that does not prove its worth in practice, degenerates into dry scholasticism and idle talk.”[4]
Let Calvinism and its world-view suffer a million deaths if it is not quickened by the work of the Holy Spirit. In Kuyper’s own words: “Unless God send forth His Spirit, there will be no turn, and fearfully rapid will be the descent of the waters.”[5]
[1] Lectures on Calvinism, pg.192.
[2] Lectures on Calvinism, pg.197.
[3] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 195. “Such a Church does not dishonor Calvinism, but itself.”
[4] Lectures on Calvinism. Pg. 187.
[5] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 199.
An Analysis of Kuyper’s Lecture: Calvinism a Life System, Part 2
In light of this comprehensive view of the Christian life, it is natural that another strong feature of Kuyperian thinking is an opposition to “escapism.” The Roman Church had abandoned any interest in a Biblical transformation of culture thus the holy life was equated to a monastic life,[1] since anything outside the Church was considered to be under possession. Kuyper opposed this dualism and emphasized that God is redeeming the world, thus “serving him in the world becomes the inspiring impulse,”[2] and the Church provided the strength to fight worldly temptations. Indeed there was no need to hide within the confines of the Church.
Unlike any other religious expression, only Calvinism urges God’s people to invade the streets of civilization with the message of the triumph of Christ over all things. It is in the people of God, through the Divine Presence, that Calvinism surges as the “required condition for the advancement of human development to a higher stage.”[3]
Strengths and Weaknesses
Richard Mouw once observed that “Calvinists specialized in cleaning up sewers-not only in the spiritual sense, but sometimes also quite literally!”[4] Indeed, Kuyperianism[5] offers the Christian ways to live in a society, rather than merely tolerating it. Ecclesiastical engagement has its limitations and sooner or later, people will begin to ask questions pertinent to their responsibilities at home and at work. This is Kuyper’s greatest strength.
There are certain areas of concern, which would be deemed areas of weakness in Kuyper’s thesis. Absent from Kuyper’s development of Calvin’s ideas is a high view of the sacraments. Kuyper summarizes the role of the Church as a place where God’s people can garner strength to face the evils of the world’s temptations.[6] Indeed, it may not have been in Kuyper’s interest to add positive thoughts on Sacramentology (though he often appears to chastise Rome’s sacerdotalism).[7] Nevertheless, it is hard to conceive of a more nurturing experience for the Christian in the world, than to embrace the fullness of Christ’s New Covenant sign given for His people in bread and wine. In Kuyper’s lecture on Calvinism and Religion,[8] he castigates Roman Catholic priestly intervention, claiming that it interrupts communion with God.[9] Kuyper’s reaction to Rome’s ecclesiastical practices and to a lesser extent Lutheranism seems to have diminished his interest in a Calvinistic view of the Lord’s Supper.
Another weakness in Kuyperian or Neo-Calvinistic thought refers to its understanding of Old Covenant revelation. Kuyperianism does not believe in an immediate application of civil penalties in modern society. In fact, some Kuyperians, like many other evangelicals, find the idea of Old Testament civil application immoral.[10] Instead they opt for a Democracy, where pluralism is embraced. Kuyper was concerned that if one religion ruled, the Church would become tyrannical. Thus, government was to rule not according to God’s revealed word in Scripture, but God’s revelation in nature. Pluralism-the refusal to accept any religion as the ultimate standard-was the ultimate consequence for denying an explicitly Christian society.[11] On the other hand, and ironically, Kuyper argues for certain Christian principles to be established in a society.[12] Kuyper does affirm that “all ethical study is based on the Law of Sinai,”[13] but never develops the application of the Moral Law to a society. This is a great weakness in Kuyper’s thought. If Kuyper had followed Puritan thinking more closely, perhaps the idea of a pluralistic society would have vanished from his writings. Pluralism is diametrically opposed to the exclusive message of Christianity. Van Til argued that epistemologically one begins either autonomously or theonomically. This same principle applies to ethics. A society either derives its ethical standards from Biblical Law or some variation of Natural Law. Though Kuyper dismissed Natural Law as an epistemic foundation, nevertheless, he implicitly leaves the door open in the area of ethics, since he did not connect the Law of Sinai with its corresponding laws-civil/judicial laws.[14] This is made clear in Kuyper’s outrage over the death of Michael Servetus in the 16th century. According to Kuyper, Servetus’s death was unwarranted. The blame is in the “unanimous and uniform advice of Calvin and his epigonies, who demanded intervention of the government in the matter of religion.”[15] Kuyper seems opposed to state intervention in religious matters, but again, what can be considered non-religious in a society? There may be a legitimate dispute over what form of government is best-whether federalism, where certain issues such as capital punishment are left to the individual states or if this authority rested in the Federal government alone–but the question of whether the state may interfere in public blasphemy or other forms of open rebellion is an issue addressed clearly in the Older Covenant.[16] The killing of a man, who openly blasphemed the Trinity and mocked the Orthodox Faith, is certainly justifiable in Biblical terms and thus to be punished by death. Kuyper further notes disapprovingly of Servetus’ death when he writes:
Notwithstanding all this, I not only deplore that one stake, but I unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the fatal after-effect of a system, grey with age, in which Calvinism found its existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had yet been able entirely to liberate itself.[17]
Kuyper sees the death of Servetus as a lasting bad seed from the Calvinistic tree that needs to be purged. Calvin tried in vain to persuade Servetus to recant of his heresies; in the end, Calvin was unable to change Servetus’ mind.[18] Finally, it seems plausible to make one more critique of Kuyper’s ideology: Though honorable in his intentions, Kuyper failed to see the vast implications of Biblical revelation for modern society. In Oliver Woods’ article Abraham Kuyper: God’s Renaissance Man, he observes the following:
Kuyper’s commitment to pluralism betrayed his poetic dedication to affirm God’s holy statutes in church and state, in home and school. The third article of the Anti-Revolutionary Party platform, Ons Program, exposes the frailty of the tactics Kuyper employed for achieving this end: ‘…the authority of the state is bound by God’s ordinances, not directly…but only via the consciences of persons in positions of authority.’ It should be self-evident that such a tactic explicitly removes civil authority from the Word of God and posits it in the vacillating conscience of the civil magistrate.[19]
The conscience of the civil magistrate is unstable in all its ways. When the government submits to some general guidelines of pluralism and libertarianism, the future of such enterprise guarantees the demise of the state and its turning over to the very systems Kuyper opposed-Humanism and Modernism.
[1] Ibid. 29.
[2] Ibid. 30.
[3] Ibid. 38.
[4] Mouw’s Musings. Blog Page. http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=26
Richard Mouw is president of Fuller Theological Seminary. He also makes a few distinctions between Kuyperianism and John Yoder’s Anabaptist theology of life. He recently delivered several lectures at The Abraham Kuyper Consultation at Princeton 2007.
[5] I am using “Kuyperianism” and “Calvinism” as synonymous terms, unless otherwise noticed.
[6] To my limited knowledge, Kuyper did not develop a robust view of the Church in any of his writings. For instance, Kuyper spoke little, if at all, concerning the role of the Sacraments in preparing Christians to face the onslaught of the world’s philosophies.
[7] Professor Frame argues: “Kuyper seems to have thought of the church as one among a number of equal agencies, including family, state, university, etc. I don’t think he gave adequate attention to the centrality of the church in biblical theology.” (Personal correspondence).
[8] Kuyper, 49.
[9] Ibid. 49.
[10] Professors from Calvin College and Seminary are little concerned about the application of Biblical Revelation to modern society. They are more interested in applying natural law than revealed law. Neo-Calvinists think it is immoral to apply Biblical law because we no longer live in a theocracy such as Israel did.
[11] It appears that Kuyper confused the rule of God in society (theocracy) with the rule of the Church (ecclesiocracy). No advocate of Theonomy embraces the latter. The ideal Biblical picture is that Church and State work side by side submitting to one Lord.
[12] In his third lecture, Kuyper speaks about the duty of a government to stop blasphemy from taking place. However, what is his Biblical basis for this? You cannot establish this much from Romans 13. Why did he not make the next move and ground it in Biblical case laws? Professor Frame answers these questions in the following manner: Kuyper’s exclusion of blasphemy was on the ground that God is the foundation of the state. So K. thought that to exclude blasphemy was not to impose the theology of any sect on the state. He resisted imposing other biblical teachings on the state, because he thought that (apart from the Urim and Thummim) the state was not competent to decide what theology was right. (Personal correspondence)
[13] Kuyper, 72.
[14] Though Professor Frame disagrees with some theonomic authors, he has done the most superb exegetical job in combining Kuyperianism with a robust view of Biblical law. Also, for an excellent and fair treatment of Theonomy’s theses, see Vern Poythress’ The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses. Poythress offers a 50 page critique of Greg Bahnsen’s theonomic theses. He gives particular attention the exegesis of Matthew 5:17. Whether he succeeds is another question. In my assessment, once one accepts the idea of the application of Biblical Law, he has by default become theonomic in his viewpoint, though there may be varying nuances. Perhaps my former professor Dr. Mark Ross distinguishes best when divides the theonomic camp into soft and hard Theonomy. If this distinction stands, then Frame and Poythress would be soft; Bahnsen and Rushdoony would be hard. I would find myself in the latter camp most of the time.
[15] Kuyper, 99.
[16] Deuteronomy 21:18-2. The example of the disobedient son is portrayed as a public death penalty. One may argue that this was not a state-level execution, since the local community and the parents were involved in this execution. But the principle is that God has authorized the state (however defined) to use the sword accordingly (Romans 13).
[17] Kuyper, 100.
[18] There is a false notion that Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist. This is erroneous. Calvin did not ultimately make decisions of life and death. This was left to the city rulers. It was by their hand that Servetus was put to death, though Calvin never tried to stop it.
[19] Woods, Oliver. Online. July/August 2002. The Christian Statesman.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/02/kuyper.html
An Analysis of Abraham Kuyper’s Lecture: Calvinism a Life System, Part 1
Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism is a vociferous call to cultural engagement. These lectures are not only a call to activism, but they also summarize Kuyper’s distinctive position, a new direction for Reformed thought that James Bratt[1] calls “Neo-Calvinism.”[2] Thus, the Lectures on Calvinism— delivered at Princeton in 1898–is Kuyper’s “whole vision in brief compass.”[3] In this presentation, the author wishes to provide an analysis of Kuyper’s first lecture entitled: Calvinism a Life-System.[4]
Calvinism a Life-System
Kuyper was an ardent opponent of modernism. He defined modernism thusly: “Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature.”[5] Modernism seeks to undermine a distinctly Christian worldview by denying God’s revelation. It was Kuyper’s concern that those who bow down before Jesus as Lord, would seek to construct a Biblical worldview that would save the “Christian heritage.”[6] This is the struggle of civilization: to preserve the Christian view of life over all autonomous attempts to challenge it.
This Christian world-view, according to Abraham Kuyper, is Calvinism. In contrast to Romanism and Arminianism,[7] Calvinism embodies the “Christian idea more purely and accurately.”[8] In Calvinism, man needs Divine Guidance and lives in the Divine Presence.[9] Any attempt to revive society or culture outside of a theocentric framework will end in futility. Further, Calvinism offers an answer to the post-modern dilemma of relativism. Kuyper’s prophetic voice saw Nietzsche’s de-emphasis on the objective as a sign of the times. Nietzsche deprived the sciences from any spiritual foundation, thus arguing that there is no constancy in values. This foundationless worldview led inevitably to nihilism. Current post-modern thought borrows heavily from Nietzsche’s philosophical denial of absolute truth. Kuyper responds to this Nietzschean post-modern thought by asserting that man cannot understand reality in a world relegated to autonomous or subjective thinking.[10] Only Christianity can make sense of reality. As Van Til rightly observes in so far as “…the believer and the non-believer, are epistemologically self-conscious and as such engaged in the interpretative enterprise, they cannot be said to have any fact in common.”[11]
The 16th century experienced a revival of Biblical thought. The vast abuse of Roman Catholicism awoke the general public to ask “What doth the Lord say?” in contrast to “What does Rome require?” Hence, through the works of the feisty German monk, Martin Luther, a Reformation was under way. Luther challenged Romanism in many ways, but reserved his main critique for the theological and ecclesiastical realm. Thus, Luther challenged Rome’s view of the Eucharist, the Magistrate, and Soteriology.[12] The 16th century Reformation was not confined merely to Luther’s critique. Calvin–after Luther–also challenged Rome’s dogma. However, unlike Luther, Calvin’s challenge went beyond the ecclesiastical and theological. Kuyper boldly asserts that: “Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century.”[13] Kuyper notes further that “… Calvinism put its impress in and outside the Church upon every department of human life.”[14] Herein lays a crucial virtue of Calvinism in the Reformation era: Calvinism taught the people of God how to live in and outside the Church. In stark opposition to Rome, which emphasized man’s ability to come to God, [15]Calvinism taught that “the whole of a man’s life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence.”[16] This Divine Presence enabled the Christian to live in submission to God. The Divine Presence is that “hidden force,” which Calvin referred to as the work of the Spirit. It is through this presence that the Christian depends on to live a holy life before the world in all that he does. Calvinism, thus, embraces an all encompassing worldview. It is both divine and human; a perfect harmony made in heaven. In one of Kuyper’s most quoted examples of the magnitude of Christ’s Lordship he writes: “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!'”[17]
[1] Bratt, James. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America. Wipf and Stock; original Eerdmans (1984). Also see Bratt’s A Centennial Reader.[2] Pork, Cornelis. Neo-Calvinism. Online. November, 1995. First appeared in the Reformed Theological Journal.http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?76
Cornelis Pork contrasts Neo-Calvinism with Classical Calvinism by asserting that Neo-Calvinists have externalized the internal religion of Martin Luther. In Neo-Calvinistic thought there is a greater interest in cultural engagement, unlike in Lutheran thought. In the words of J. Aalders: “Kuyper with his lop-sided emphasis on culture and social involvement has contributed greatly to what he calls the externalisation of the doctrines of grace.” My response is that Aalders’ understanding of Kuyper is misguided. Kuyper, too, cared deeply about Christian piety, though he believed piety had been used as an excuse for cultural retreat. Among Kuyper’s classic works on Christian Piety is: “To Be Near Unto God.” In contrast, Classical Calvinism was much more concerned about the internal cry of the soul. If this distinction has any credit, than Classical Calvinism is much more Lutheran than Calvinistic.
[3] Bratt, James, ed. Abraham Kuyper, A Centennial Reader. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. pg.1.
[4] Though Calvinism a Life-System will be the main focus, I will also draw on other lectures and resources to enrich this brief study.
[5] Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1931. pg. 11
[6] Ibid. 11.
[7] The Arminian thought– no matter in what religion it was found-sought to uphold man’s knowledge above God’s. This is a crucial point in the apologetic endeavor. The question that must be answered is “How does man know God?” The Thomistic tradition exalted man’s knowledge. Aquinas believed-like Aristotle-that human knowledge is like a blank tablet. Humanity is to write upon that tablet on the basis of his knowledge and intellectual prowess. Calvinistic thought, on the other hand, believes that the human heart is in need of regeneration. The human heart indeed cannot have true knowledge of God apart from a work of divine grace.
[8] Lectures on Calvinism, pg. 17.
[9] See page 25 of Lectures on Calvinism for a lengthier discussion of the Divine Presence.
[10] In this case I do not wish to minimize some of the positive emphasis of post-modernity-however one wishes to define that concept. Rather, I speak of secularistic post-modernity.
[11] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 5.
[12] Undoubtedly, Luther challenged much more; nevertheless, three elements form the center of Luther’s criticism.
[13] Kuyper, pg.14.
[14] Kuyper, pg. 23
[15] This ability came mainly through ecclesiastical mediation. Tetzel claimed that if the people would give to Rome, they would then diminish their time in Purgatory.
[16] Kuyper, pg. 25.
[17] Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 488. Quote from Kuyper’s inaugural address at the dedication of the Free University of Amsterdam.