“For after all these things do the Gentiles seek… But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Matt 6:32:33
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 8+
Book 3
Quotes 2
“Dominion” or “Cultural Mandate” Gen. 1:28
.
Articles
1900’s
van der Kroef, Justus M. – ‘Abraham Kuyper & the Rise of Neo-Calvinism in the Netherlands’ Church History, vol. 17, no. 4 (Dec., 1948), pp. 316-334
Young, William – ‘Historic Calvinism & Neo-Calvinism’ Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 36, 1973-74, with editorial revisions from the Rev. Sherman Isbell
Neo-Calvinism was birthed from the thought of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Herman Dooyeweerd and others in the late 1800’s. It has had a tremendous effect on, and has become a dominant feature of, reformed thought in America.
Young shows where Neo-Calvinism has departed from historic Calvinism on 7 points, including: a change of Covenant Theology, an over-emphasis on cultural renewal and institutions, a depreciation of personal religion, and affirming the unBiblical doctrine of presumptive regeneration with its various implications.
Pronk, Cornelius – ‘Neo-Calvinism’ Reformed Theological Journal (Nov. 1995) 15 pp.
Pronk has been a Free Reformed Churches of North America pastor in Canada. The conclusion of this article is in Pronk’s other article below.
Dennison, William D. – ‘Dutch Neo-Calvinism & the Roots for Transformation: an Introductory Essay’ JETS 42/2 (June 1999) 271–91
“Increasingly, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, both the legacy of the Enlightenment and the heritage of Christianity desired the thrill of possessing the culture—this world as we see it! Dutch neo-Calvinism has participated in this cultural battle, but it seems to me that the underpinnings of the eschatological vision of the Enlightenment have increasingly encompassed the eschatological vision of neo-Calvinism.” – p. 273
.
2000’s
Pronk, Cornelius – ‘Neo-Calvinism’ (2002) 10 paragraphs at Banner of Truth This is an intro and the conclusion of Pronk’s article above.
van Keulen, Dirk – ‘The Theological Course of the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands’ Ref in Vicissitudes of Reformed Theology in the Twentieth Century (Brill, 2004), pp. 87-117
Isbell, Sherman – ‘Recovering Experimental Religion’ (2009) 13 pp.
Hengstmengel, Joost W. – ‘The Reformation of Economic Thought: Dutch Calvinist Economics, 1880–1948’ Philosophia Reformata
vol. 78, no. 2, ‘Economics, Christianity & the Crisis: Towards a New Architectonic Critique’ Proceedings of the First Kuyper Seminar, 8–9 Amsterdam (Jan, 2013), pp. 124-143
Sutanto, N. Gray & Cory Brock – ‘The History of Neo-Calvinism Examined & Explained’ (2023) 19 paragraphs at TGC with a 16 point summary
The authors are advocates of Neo-Calvinism, and co-authored a book on the subject. There are 16 summary propositions as to what Neo-Calvinism is at the end of the article.
.
Books
1900’s
Campbell-Jack, Walter Campbell – Grace Without Christ?: the Doctrine of Common Grace in Dutch-American Neo-Calvinism a PhD dissertation (Edinburgh, 1992) 335 pp.
Abstract: “…The purpose of the present work is to examine, from a standpoint sympathetic to the concerns of neo-Calvinism, the nature, function and validity of the doctrine of common grace…
Section II consists of a survey of how the doctrine has been treated in neo-Calvinist theology, with reference to representative theologians within this tradition, Kuyper, Hoeksema, Van Til, Schilder and Dooyeweerd. The response of Calvin to the questions raised in common grace is then examined. The greatest flaw in the construction of common grace is the distinction made between the incarnate Christ as Mediator of Redemption and the eternal Son as Mediator of Creation. The dualising tendency this introduces into the neo-Calvinist system of theology has serious effects which can only be overcome by re-asserting the importance of the Cross for the creation. In Section III there is an attempt to construct an approach to the relationship between God and creation which whilst avoiding the dualising tendencies of common grace is faithful to the Reformed tradition…”
.
2000’s
eds. Sutanto, N. Gray & Cory Brock – T&T Clark Handbook of Neo-Calvinism Ref (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024) 544 pp.
Sutanto, N. Gray & Cory Brock – Neo-Calvinism: A Theological Introduction (Lexham Academic, 2023) 320 pp.
This book is pro-Neo-Calvinism and is helpful in understanding it.
.
Quotes
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church-Government… (London, 1646), p. 614
“Argument 7. That opinion is not to be held which lays ground that Christ-Mediator is a temporary king, has under Him magistrates, even heathenish, who have nothing to do with a mediator, to bear a temporal sword for a supernatural and spiritual end, as Christ under-heirs, He himself being the first-heir of all such and so makes heathens within the verge of the Mediatorial Kingdom; as if Christ were as Mediator, a King to heathen and all and everyone of mankind, who must have magistrates, and so [it] makes the Kingdom of men as men, and the Kingdom of Grace commensurable, and of alike latitude and extension, and makes nature and grace of equal comprehension:
But such is the former opinion; the proposition cannot be denied, except by Arminians, Socinians, Papists, who do maintain an universal redemption, a grace universal, a catholic Kingdom of Grace comprehensive of all and every man, of Pharaoh, Evil Merodach, Belshazzar, all the kings of Romans, Persians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and of Turk[s], India, and such as worship the sun and moon, the Devil, and the work of men’s hands…”
.
2000’s
Stephen Wolfe
‘Correcting Theologians: A Response to Brian Mattson’ (2023)
“One hopes that reviews like this will become a thing of the past, as neo-Calvinist anxieties about the Protestant retrieval of 17th century Reformed thought subside. Retrieval has increasingly revealed that, despite the diversity in the doctrinal development of the 17th century, the distinctives of neo-Calvinism have no place in that diversity, nor could they arise logically from that diversity.
Reformed theology, from Calvin to the 19th century, was thoroughly “dualistic” – affirming distinctions between natural/supernatural, nature/grace, reason/faith, temporal/eternal, earth/heaven, and secular/sacred. Reformed theology did not reject these medieval categories as popish errors, let alone as paganistic. They incorporated them in their theological systems, modifying them as they saw fit, and these became essential to their system’s coherence.”
.
On the “Dominion” or “Cultural Mandate”, Gen. 1:28
Quote
Peter Mastricht
Theoretical Practical Theology (RHB), vol. 3, bk. 3
ch. 9, Exegetical Part, p. 252
“Fecundity: “increase and multiply.” These words can have: (1) an imperative sense, in which way the ancient Hebrews wanted there to be here a universal precept, placed upon all people, of contracting marriage, which they call ונמה פיריה מצות” ,the commandment of fruitfulness and multiplication,” because one who does not confirm this commandment has no part, they say, in the age to come. But in this way the commandment would fall even upon brute beasts, since the same thing is said of them in verse 22; in this way also there would be a commandment to have dominion over the fish, “have dominion over the fish of the sea,” and so forth.
(2) A concessive sense, just as in Genesis 2:16 and Deuteronomy 14:11, 20.
Finally, (3) a promissory sense, so that the imperative stands in place of the future, “increase” in place of “you will increase,” and so forth, such that he is promising fertility, power, and appetite to beget what is similar to them; hence this is said only of fecund things, but not of light, stars, plants, and so forth.”
.
ch. 11, section 4, pp. 356-57
“Moreover, God permits: (1) sometimes in express terms (Col. 2:16, 20–21; Gen. 2:16–17; Lev. 11:2–4), when he removes these or those things from among things prohibited; (2) sometimes only by nowhere prohibiting (cf. Rom. 14:14; Acts 10:15); (3) sometimes also in terms of commanding (Deut. 23:20; Gen. 1:28), just as in the same terms of commanding he sometimes expressly prohibits (Num. 22:20; John 13:27).”
.
.
.
Related Pages