George C. Lubbers (1909-2001)
[Source: The Standard Bearer, vol. 21, nos. 3,
5, 6 (Nov-Dec, 1944); Note to reader: Quotes are taken from Calvinism: Six
Stone-Lectures (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1898 edition)]
I
Kuyper’s Calvinistic
Interpretation of the History of Mankind
The
Stone Lectures of Dr. A. Kuyper on Calvinism are well known in Reformed
circles; it may be taken for granted that at least the title of this work is
known by many of the readers. For the
sake of those who may be interested in this subject and who are acquainted with
this work, a few remarks of an introductory nature will not be superfluous.
Dr.
Kuyper delivered these Stone Lectures in the month of October 1898, at
Princeton, N.J. They were delivered in
the English language. However, they are
also obtainable now in the Holland language.
The question might be asked as to which copy is the original one. Personally, we found the Holland copy the
easier of the two to read, and again and again could not avoid the impression
that the Holland was the original and that the English was a translation. However this may have been, our quotations
will be from the English copy.
In
six lectures, the late Dr. Kuyper treats the theme: Calvinism. The method followed in presenting the subject
matter is rather uniform throughout. At
the outset we are told in nearly each lecture the course of argument to be
followed and a brief resumption is given of the ground covered up to that
certain point. The speaker (writer)
traces a definite line of thought containing an all-embracing life-and-world-view. With bold strokes, this is done in the first lecture.
It is especially in this first lecture
that the speaker gives us his interpretation of history. In the last and concluding lecture which
speaks of “Calvinism and the Future,” we again see the speaker’s view of
history.
There
is indeed very much in these lectures to which we gratefully and heartily subscribe. Dr. Kuyper was no scholar in the common sense
of the word; he was a pioneer hacking his way through the forest, a man of
broad and penetrating vision overlooking the entire domain of life. Nevertheless, we cannot agree with the
departed brother’s underlying thesis in his interpretation of the history of
this fallen, sinful world.
We believe that the lines must be drawn differently, not only in the
matter of the relationship of nature and grace, but most emphatically
also in regard to sin and grace.
*
* * *
* * *
Permit
us to sketch for you Kuyper’s view of Calvinism and its place in the development
of mankind. It is well to bear in
mind that thus the matter is constructed by the learned speaker.
“Calvinism,”
according to Kuyper, is not to be defined to the ecclesiastical, dogmatical
domain. That this is his contention is
evident, first of all, from his definition and circumscription of Calvinism. By the logical process of elimination, Kuyper
shows us exactly how he would have us conceive of Calvinism. He catalogues the following senses in which
we can and in which historically we do speak of Calvinism. First of all, as it is employed by Roman
Catholicism, as a stigmatization of Protestantism. This use of the term is both historically and
factually beside the point. Secondly,
there are the denominational Calvinists.
These are those who possibly in church government are Presbyterian as
Calvin advocated, but deny the doctrine of predestination. Then “Calvinism” also serves as a confessional
name. In this sense, a Calvinist is
represented exclusively as the outspoken subscriber to the dogma of
foreordination. They who disapprove of
this strong attachment to the doctrine of predestination cooperate with the
Romish polemicists, in that by calling you “Calvinists,” they represent you as “a
victim of dogmatic narrowness; and what is worse still, as being dangerous to
the real seriousness of moral life” (p. 6).
Kuyper does not deny that attachment to the doctrine of foreordination
is Calvinism, but to this he would not limit it. We quote: “The chief purpose of my lecturing
in this country was, to eradicate the wrong idea, that Calvinism represented an
exclusively dogmatical and ecclesiastical movement” (p. 231). This last quotation is sufficient commentary
on these usages of the term “Calvinism.”
There
is, according to these lectures, also a fourth sense in which we can speak of
Calvinism. This last interpretation of
the term “Calvinism” is to take it in a scientific-philosophic sense. And it is the contention of the esteemed
lecturer that in this sense of the term, Calvinism must be championed. Writes Kuyper:
But beyond this sectarian, confessional,
and denominational use of the name “Calvinist”, it serves moreover, in the fourth
place, as a scientific name, either in an historical, philosophical or
political sense. Historically, the name
of Calvinism indicates the channel in which the Reformation moved, so far as it
was neither Lutheran, nor Anabaptist nor Socinian. In the philosophical sense, we understand by
it that system of conceptions which, under the influence of the master-mind of
Calvin raised itself to dominance in the several spheres of life. And as a political name, Calvinism indicates
that political movement which has guaranteed the liberty of nations in
constitutional statesmanship; first in Holland, then in England, and since the
close of the last century in the United States. (p. 8)
From
the rather lengthy quotation just made, it is quite evident that Kuyper
conceives of Calvinism not as a movement born from the principle of
regeneration in the heart of the elect only and ending in the new creation of
all things (Matt. 1:28), but that he would draw the line of Calvinism to the
life of mankind, the human race.
Calvinism is the movement in history when considered in “its
deepest logic” (p. 35) from the lower to the higher forms of life in the development
of mankind.
To
show that we are not yet criticising but that we are merely attempting to
sketch for you Kuyper’s view, attend to the following from his lectures. In the first place, Kuyper sketches for us
four all-embracing life-and-world-views—which each in their turn have dominated
all life. These are as follows: Firstly, Paganism, which may be considered to
cover everything from Animism to Buddhism, Secondly, Islamism-Mohammedanism,
which rose in the twelfth century and dominated all life, (a) in relationship to God, (b) in relationship of our fellowman, and (c)
in relationship to the world. Next in line comes the Roman Catholic
hierarchy as an all-embracing life-and-world-view, that is, the conception of
man’s relationship to (1) God, (2) to fellowman, and (3) to the world round about us. Calvinism is the last in line historically. Calvinism also has developed a life-and-world-view
from its own deepest principle and religious convictions—centrally, in its conception
of man’s relationship to God; then of his relationship to his fellowman, and
finally, of his relationship to the world of God’s creation. Calvinism is the highest budding out of the
human race. The human race needed to
pass through the stages of Paganism-Islamism-Romanism to come to Calvinism.
Thus
is the movement in history as conceived of by Kuyper. The endeavors of nations apart from
Israel-Jerusalem had a positive contribution to the make to history. That we are not misinterpreting the deceased
brother may be evident from the following quotation:
But even this is not all. The fact that in a given circle Calvinism has
formed an interpretation of life quite its own, from which both in the
spiritual and secular domain a special system arose for domestic and social
life, justifies its claim to assert itself as an independent formation; but
does not yet credit it with the honour of having led humanity [italics
mine—GL], as such, up to a higher stage in its development, and therefore this
life-system has not, so far as we have considered it, attained that position
which alone could give it the right to claim for itself the energy and devotion
of our hearts. In China it can be
asserted with equal right that Confucianism has produced a form of its own for
life in a given circle, and the Mongolian race that form of life rests upon a
theory of its own. But what has China
done for humanity in general, and for the steady development of our race? Even so far as the waters of its life were
clear, they formed nothing but an isolated lake. Almost the same remark applies to the high development
which was once the boast of India and to the state of things in Mexico and Peru
in the days of Montezuma and the Incas.
In all these regions the people attained a high degree of development,
but stopped there, and, remaining isolated, in no way proved a benefit to
humanity at large. This applies more
strongly still to the life of the coloured races on the coast and in the
interior of Africa — a far lower form of existence, reminding us not even of a
lake but rather of pools and marshes.
There is but one world-stream, broad and fresh, which from the beginning
bore the promise of the future. This
stream had its rise in Middle-Asia and the Levant, and has steadily continued
its course from East to West. From
Western Europe it has passed on to your Eastern States and from thence to California.
The sources of this stream of development
are found in Babylon and in the valley of the Nile. From thence it flowed on to Greece. From Greece it passed on to the Roman
Empire. From the Romanic nations it
continued its way to the North-western parts of Europe and from Holland and
England it reached at length your continent. At present that stream is at a
standstill. Its Western course through China
and Japan is impeded; meanwhile no one can tell what forces for the future may
yet lie slumbering in the Slavic races which have thus far failed of
progress. But while the secret of the
future is still veiled in mystery, the course of this world-stream from East to
West can be denied by none. And
therefore I am justified in saying: that Paganism, Islamism and Romanism are
the three successive formations which this development had reached, when its
further direction passed over into the hands of Calvinism … (pp. 33-35)
From
the foregoing, it is very evident that, according to Kuyper, Calvinism must not
be understood as having its course of development through the line of Adam, Seth,
Noah, Abraham, David, Christ, and the church in the world, but most
emphatically through the line of Egypt, Syria, Babylon, Athens, Rome, the
civilization of western Europe and the United States.
If
this has not been made clear in the above quotation, then may the following
serve to assure us that this line in the development of Calvinism is not at all
the portion of the line of the Holy Promise.
Kuyper no doubt felt the difficulty of maintaining the position he had
taken in explaining the history of the world in its development of the human
race in the light of both of Scripture and of historic considerations. Consequently, he proceeds further in his
lecture as follows:
The succession of these four phases of
development did not take place mechanically, with sharply outlined divisions
and parts. This development of life is
organic, and therefore each new period roots in the past. In its deepest logic [in zijn diepste gedachte—GL]
Calvinism had already been apprehended by Augustine; had, long before Augustine,
been proclaimed to the City of the seven hills by the Apostle in his Epistle to
the Romans; and from Paul goes back to Israel and its prophets, yea to the
tents of the patriarchs. Romanism
likewise does not make its appearance suddenly, but is the joint product of the
three potencies of Israel’s priesthood, the cross of Calvary, and the
world-organization of the Roman Empire.
Islam in the same way joins itself to Israel’s Monism [belief in one God—GL]
to the Prophet of Nazareth, and to the tradition of the Koraishites. And even the Paganism of Babylon and Egypt on
the one hand, and of Greece and Rome upon the other, stand organically related
to what lay behind these nations, preceding the prosperity of their lives. (p.
35)
From
this last quotation, Kuyper must prove that Calvinism means to be and is the development
of the human race. It is his
contention that the source of this development is Egypt-Syria-Babylon-Athens-Rome-Western
European Civilization-United States.
Does the above paragraph demonstrate this? If words have meaning, all that Kuyper shows
is that the line of Calvinism is Calvin-Augustine-Paul (Letter to Rome),
Prophets, Abraham; that both Romanism
and Islamism borrowed elements from this holy work of God in Christ, and
corrupted these with elements of paganism.
And that the Pagan line is Egypt-Babylon-Greece-Rome and with what lies
back of each. Hence, two parallel lines
in history, at least as far as the chronology is concerned. Yet both having their own spiritual
impetus. This is Kuyper’s analysis (p. 35).
Yet
this is not at all the conclusion of Kuyper in these Stone Lectures. Attend to the following:
But even so [notice the concession—GL] it
is as clear as day that the supreme force in the central development of the human
race moved along successively from Babylon to Egypt to Greece and Rome, then to
the chief regions of the Papal dominion, and finally to the Calvinistic nations
of the Western Europe. If Israel flourished
in the days of Babylon and Egypt, however high its standard, the direction and
development of the human race was not in the hands of the sons of Abraham but
in those of the Belshassars and the Pharaohs.
Again, this leadership does not pass from Babylon and Egypt on to Israel
but to Greece and Rome. However high the
stream of Christianity had risen when Islam made its appearance in the 8th and
9th centuries the followers of Mahomet were our teachers and with them
rested the issue of the world. And
though the hegemony of Romanism still maintained itself a short time after the
peace of Munster, no one questions the fact, that the higher development, which
we are now enjoying, we owe neither to Spain nor to Austria, nor even to the
Germany of that time, but to the Calvinistic countries of the Netherlands and
to England of the 16th century. Under
Louis XIV, Romanism arrested the higher development in France, but only that in
the French Revolution it might exhibit a ghastly caricature of Calvinism, which
in its sad consequences broke the inner strength of France as a nation, and
weakened its international significance. (pp. 35-36)
We
are not now criticising Kuyper’s presentation of Calvinism, but are merely
attempting to make clear the position taken by the author of the Stone Lectures. In another article we will give our criticism
of Kuyper’s conception, his life-and-world-view. And so, we notice that with might and main,
Kuyper maintains that the Calvinistic line runs Egypt-Babylon-Greece-Rome-Islam-Romanism-Calvinistic
Western Europe.
There
is one more element that Kuyper brings into the picture. This is the element of the commingling of
blood. The stand of the author is
that in those countries where the one type of man is prominent, there is less
development than where there is a mingling of nations. On the contrary, where there is an intermingling,
as in the cases of the sons of Shem and Japheth, these groups by commingling
have crossed their traits with those of other tribes and thus have attained a
higher perfection.
Now
what, according to Kuyper, has all this to do with Calvinism? Calvinism has as its purpose the development
of mankind. This is a fundamental
thesis with the writer. Attend further
to the following from his pen:
To this should be added that the history of
our race does not aim at the improvement of any single tribe, but at the development
of mankind taken as a whole, and therefore needs this commingling of
blood in order to attain its end. Now in fact history shows that the nations
among whom Calvinism flourished most widely, exhibit in every way this same
mingling of races. (pp. 39-40)
*
* * *
* * *
Our
criticism of the foregoing we will reserve for a following issue. We now pass on to some of the highlights of
the other lectures. These lectures treat
of the following subjects: Lecture II—“Calvinism
and Religion”; Lecture III—“Calvinism
and Politics”; Lecture IV—“Calvinism and
Science”; Lecture V—“Calvinism and Art”;
To lectures I and VI we have virtually
called attention in the foregoing. Our evaluation
of these lectures will also have to wait until the following issues of the Standard
Bearer.
The
following is a synopsis of the content of these lectures.
In
Lecture II, which treats of “Calvinism and Religion,” the author calls
attention to the following questions: (1)
Is religion for man’s sake or is it for God, according to Calvinism? (2) Is it mediate through the church
institution as was the case with Rome, or is it immediate and placing us directly
before the face and majesty of God and His law?
(3) Is religion total or partial? does it include the entire man, or is
it merely a matter of the will and feeling?
(4) Is religion now since the fall normal or is it abnormal and soteriological? In passing, we wish to remark that we do not
intend to call attention to every detail of this lecture. In the next issues we wish to call attention
to elements of Kuyper’s conception of man’s personality which stands in direct
relation to his conception of the progress of mankind and the presupposition of
common grace.
In
the third lecture, we receive an insight into Kuyper’s conception of a
Calvinistic State. To quote Kuyper’s own
words:
In order that the influence of Calvinism on
our own political development may be felt, it must be shown, for what
fundamental political conceptions Calvinism has opened the door, and how these
political conceptions sprang from its root principle. (p. 99)
And
again, we quote:
This dominating principle was not,
soteriologically, justification by faith, but, in the widest sense cosmologically,
the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos, in all its
spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible.
A primordial Sovereignty which eradicates in mankind in a
threefold deduced supremacy, viz., 1. The Sovereignty in the State; 2. The Sovereignty in Society; 3. The Sovereignty in the Church. (Ibid.)
In
the fourth lecture, Kuyper develops what to his mind is the relationship of Calvinism
to Science (Wetenschap). We
quote:
Four points of it only do I submit to your
thoughtful consideration; first, that Calvinism fostered and could not but
foster love for science; secondly, that it restored to science its
domain; thirdly, that it delivered science from unnatural bonds; and
fourthly in what manner it sought and found a solution for the unavoidable scientific
conflict. (p. 143)
The
fifth lecture of this series treats of “Calvinism and Art.” Here we enter upon a discussion of the beautiful,
the field of aesthetics. The esteemed
speaker considered the following points: 1. Why Calvinism was not allowed to
develop an art-style of its own; 2. What
flows from its principle for the nature of Art;
3. What it has actually done for its advancement.
A
hasty perusal of this august list of subjects will convince us that that
subject matter is very broad and lies, in part, outside of the range of the
regular study of a minister. It will not
be possible for us to enter into the field of aesthetics in our
discussion. Neither will we be able to
enter into the detailed questions of politics and science which are provoked by
these lectures.
We
gratefully acknowledge our indebtedness to Dr. Kuyper for having taught us much
in these lectures. Especially is this
true of the lectures on politics and art.
This does not imply that we subscribe to all. It is especially on the points touching the
place of science and politics in Kuyper’s conception of history as the
development of mankind that we take exception to. But of this we will write more later.
II
Kuyper’s Method
In
our former article, we quoted rather at length from Kuyper’s Stone Lectures.
We may therefore assume in this article
that there remains no doubt in the mind of the reader as to what his conception
really was; what he deemed to be a
Calvinistic interpretation of the history of mankind—mankind as such apart from
the work of the Wonder of Grace in Christ Jesus.
The
conception developed in these lectures and the conclusions arrived at as it
touches Calvinism is both negative and positive. Negative, in that it is asserted that
Calvinism is not to be understood in an exclusively confessional,
ecclesiastical-dogmatical sense; and positively, in that it is asserted that
Calvinism is a movement in the entire domain of life: religious, political,
scientific and artistic—and that not merely in this sense: that this indicates
the entire orb of the life of the regenerated and enlightened Christian, but
that this is the case with mankind as such!
In
this article, we wish to institute an investigation to see what method
Kuyper employs in these lectures. To be
sure, when we speak of method, we do not mean the purely formal method
in which Kuyper would make the subject matter clear in these lectures. We refer here to the question of what is
known by scholars as “methodology,” that is, the science of method used by one
to arrive at and to ascertain the truth of the underlying prepositions. In this case, the premise that the history of
the world and of mankind must be judged to have followed the course of: Paganism, Islamism, Romanism, Calvinism,
Western European civilization … San Francisco!
Speaking
of “method,” it will be well to remember that there are in the last analysis
but two methods that can be followed.
The one is to have Scripture be our guide. The other is to disregard the Word of God
altogether and to merely reason from an assumed premise by inference or
observation, or to reason from the facts of experience. It stands to reason that if the first method
is employed, one will have to proceed exegetically-synthetically, that is, he
will have to study all the testimony of Scripture that has bearing on a certain
matter and come to conclusions and judgments from the data of Scripture.
The
question is therefore in order: Does
Dr. Kuyper, in attempting to establish the underlying presupposition of his
conception of Calvinism, proceed exegetically-synthetically? If so, does he apply this rule consistently
to the very end, or does he reason from the facts of experience and draw
certain fundamental conclusions from these when he draws the lines of Calvinism
as set forth in these lectures? To seek
to give an answer to these questions will be the burden of this writing.
It
is an interesting fact that the Holy Scriptures shed a great deal of light on
the history of what it calls “the nations.” In the prophecy of Daniel, this is especially
the case. Both in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (chapter 2) and in Daniel’s
vision of the “four beasts” (chapter 7), we see the development of the world-powers
in their Antichristian character. And
again, the Holy Spirit shows John on the Isle of Patmos the vision of the “beast”
coming up out of the “sea” and also the “beast” coming up out of the earth
(Rev. 13). And again, this is referred
to and explained in Revelation 17. And
the lines of nations there given is: seven nations. Babel-Assyria-Babylon-Persia-Greece-Rome-One
not yet! This is the beast with the
seven heads and ten horns!
Now
it must be borne in mind that we are not criticizing Kuyper’s conclusions, but
we are interested merely in the question of Kuyper’s procedure to come
to his conclusions. However, the
foregoing paragraph does shed a great deal of light on whether Kuyper’s conclusions
are scriptural.
This
question becomes all the more to the point when we remember that according to
Kuyper, it is Calvinistic to see mankind develop in the three-fold
relationship, the entire orb of life: 1.
Man in relationship to God (Lecture II—“Calvinism and Religion”), 2. Man in relation to fellow-man (Lecture
III—“Calvinism and Politics”), 3. Man in
relationship to the world/creation (Lectures IV and V—Calvinism and Science and
Art).
Once
more I ask, does Kuyper in these lectures develop this conception exegetically-synthetically?—by
consistently applying to fallen man in his primordial relationship to
God what the Scriptures teach and what the fathers of Dort had set down in
confessional statements, statements concerning the things that are revealed
that must soon come to pass, and from what Scripture teaches concerning the
nature of these “nations”?
One
might object to these questions and say, “Kuyper had performed all that
groundwork in other works, and he is merely giving here the product of that investigation.” He might say, “Don’t expect a man to do everything
in a few lectures.” If this should be the case, then, in a way, this
investigation can cease here. We would
merely stand before the question whether the conclusions arrived at were
scriptural. This, by the way, is the task
awaiting us in the next instalment on this subject.
However
one wishes to judge of this matter, the fact is that one looks in vain for any semblance
of an attempt in these lectures to proceed from the plain teaching of
Scripture. That is an undeniable
fact. Nowhere does Dr. Kuyper show that
his conclusions are in accord with Scripture, neither does he show that the
positive line, of which he speaks, is in harmony with the plain teaching of the
prophecies in this matter.
We
would here discontinue our discussion were it not for another matter in these
lectures worthy of notice. It also touches
the matter of Kuyper’s method.
Again, this principle
of “common grace” is brought to bear in the relationship of man to man, that is,
in the field of politics and social life.
Also here there is a restraining influence. The magistrate is there because of sin and is
really a gift of common grace. And
finally, in the last relationship of man’s relationship to the world. Also here the great and noble endeavors of
men are by reason of the restraint of sin due to common grace.
The question has been
asked repeatedly by interested laymen: “Where did Dr. Kuyper obtain this
teaching?” We believe that the following
quotation from Lecture IV on “Calvinism and Science” (p. 159) will shed some
light on this question, and we believe also demonstrates Kuyper’s method. We quote:
Now
I proceed to consider the dogma of “common grace”, that natural outcome
of the general principle, just presented to you, but in its special application
to sin, understood as corruption of our nature. Sin places us before a riddle, which in
itself is insoluble. If you view sin as
a deadly poison, as enmity against God, as leading to everlasting condemnation,
and if you represent a sinner as being “wholly incapable of doing any good, and
prone to all evil,” and on this account salvable only, if God by regeneration
changes his heart, then it seems as if of necessity all unbelievers and unregenerate
persons ought to be wicked and repulsive men.
But this is far from being our experience in actual life [italics
mine—GL]. On the contrary the unbelieving
world excels in many things. Precious
treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by
his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings,
that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and literary
productions of professed infidels, how much there is that attracts you, with which
you sympathize and which you admire. It
is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent, which excites
your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty
of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their
candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty [italics
mine—GL]. Yes, we may not pass it over
in silence, not unfrequently you entertain the desire, that certain believers
might have more of this attractiveness, and who himself among us has not been
put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues
of the heathen”?
It
is thus a fact, that your dogma of total depravity by sin does not always fully
tally with your experience in life.
What does this
quotation from this lecture teach us as to the author’s approach to the
question of common grace? Of the possibility
of a good world-life in the threefold relationship of God, fellow-man and the
world?
Briefly stated, the
method is: the approach of experience.
Practical life does not tally with questions 5 and 8 of the Heidelberg
Catechism, neither with Romans 3:10-18 and Ephesians 2:1-3. What is the conclusion? This.
I must learn to tally my experience with God’s verdict? Not at all.
The good that we experience is better than the Scriptures say. Hence an explanation must be given. And that explanation is: common grace!
What to say of this
method of procedure? It is the same rule
that in the last few decades has been applied to Genesis 1-3. Scientific observation finds that it cannot
square its facts with Genesis 1, the biblical account of creation. And what is done about it? Either the facts of Genesis are denied, or
the text is made to fit the case.
Scientific conclusions rule in deciding the meaning of the text. And thus also Dr. Kuyper attempts to construe
the sense of the Scriptures to fit with, to ally with experience.
But what Kuyper does is
more ingenious. What he attempts in his
method is to show that there are two operations of the Holy Spirit in sinful
mankind. Hence, there is not only the
work of God in regeneration, the positive line in history which runs Abraham-Prophets-Paul-Augustine-Calvin,
but there is also the line which runs: Paganism-Egypt-Babylon-Greece-Rome-Islamism-Romanism-Calvinism. Two parallel lines, the lines of natural
grace and of saving grace.
Our conclusion: Kuyper did not arrive at this conception in
the way of exegetical-synthetical study, but in the way of attempting a
reconciliation of what he considered a discrepancy between the doctrine of
total depravity and the good that the unregenerate do.
And this was not the
method of the Reformers.
III
His Dualistic-Synthetic
Conception of History
To
attempt a comprehensive criticism of Kuyper’s Stone Lectures with some
regard to details in an article of five typewritten pages would be
preposterous. These lectures cover every
subject in the encyclopedia of human knowledge.
And what is more, the author’s conception of Christian Encyclopedia is
presupposed throughout. To understand these
lectures, one must bear in mind that they were written in mature years of
Kuyper’s life and that they give in abbreviated form his entire life-and-world-view.
Should
we voice our objections against the various elements with which we take issue
in these lectures, without attempting to point out what to our mind is the basic
error of the author, we would run a twofold risk. The first is of a formal nature. Because of the limitation of space allotted us. We could at best offer mere catalogization of
our criticisms. The second is more
serious. We would fail to see the real
issue because we had lost ourself in the variety of issues. This is our criticism of a great many of the
criticisms that have been given of these lectures.
In
consideration of the foregoing, we will limit our criticism to what we consider
the underlying, unbiblical error in Kuyper’s conception, which in this case is
tantamount to the basic error of the “common grace” hypothesis.
The
basic error of the author in the interpretation of history, the world and of
mankind is that it is dualistic-synthetic.
Indeed,
this is a serious accusation, which places a twofold duty upon our shoulders in
this writing, (1) to carefully define
our terms, lest we perhaps misrepresent the late Dr. Kuyper’s views, or that we
be not mistakenly understood as doing such, and (2) to show, in as far as this
is possible within the allotted space that this is indeed the error of the
author.
We
said that Kuyper’s view of history was dualistic. What do we imply with this? We do not refer in thus judging of Kuyper’s
conception to the mythological dualism held by the Persian philosophers, who
maintained the existence of a good principle and an evil principle, and who
thus explained the mixed state of the things of this present world, such as
sickness and health, poverty and riches, want and abundance, evil and virtue. This was the philosophy revived by Gnosticism
in the early church and was also the error of Manicheanism, against which Augustine
militated. To represent Kuyper as having
advocated this dualism would be unfactual.
There
is another dualistic conception to which Kuyper’s view approaches. This is the dualistic conception which holds
that the world came into being and is preserved by the concurrence of two
principles equally necessary, independent, and eternal. We said that Kuyper’s view approached
this. Yet there are some very important
modifications to notice. His dualistic
view does not postulate two philosophic and abstractly conceived concurrent principles
which are eternal. This is evident
from the fact that, according to eternal principles, there is no
Creation in the scriptural sense; neither is there a possibility of
Providence. The only thing there can
possibly be is Pantheism. Even though,
as we shall presently point out, Kuyper’s view is dualistic and has the
appearance of this dualism, it differs in these following respects:
1.
The author of the Stone Lectures holds to the confession that the origin
of the world is out of the one creative will of God.
2.
It is his conviction that the world’s preservation (Providence) is also by the
one will of Almighty God. All Pantheistic
dualism denies these two fundamental points of confession.
3.
Kuyper further believes that all things were created good, both creaturely and
ethically.
4.
Sin, according to Kuyper, entered into the world by the disobedience of one
man.
We
believe that these four factors distinguish the view of Kuyper from
heathenistic and modernistic Pantheism.
Kuyper’s
dualism begins historically after the good world has fallen through the sin and
disobedience of Adam in Paradise. He
postulates two concurrent principles in the history of a fallen world:
the history of fallen mankind.
The two concurrent principles are “common grace” and “saving grace.” And the fruit of these two kinds of grace,
thus Kuyper, is a twofold positive development in the history of the world. The one proceeding from saving grace is the
one in the church which ends in the final glory of the sons of adoption. The other proceeding from common grace
guarantees a positive good development of mankind as such. Thus, there is a dualism of principle in the
world—both working positive good. The one
is stronger and more enduring than the other, to be sure, being regenerative,
but the other is positively good being restraintive of the same evil which, in
regeneration, is completely overcome.
It
is also well to take notice of the fact that common grace, according to Kuyper,
is, strictly speaking, not the same as Providence—the preservation of what God
has once creatively called into existence.
According to him, common grace is the restraintive influence in
the element of “government” in Providence.
And this government of Providence does not touch the whole of created
things, but only the rational beings.
Thus, he teaches in his Dictaten Dogmatiek, Locus: “De Providentia”
(p. 94). The same presentation may be
found in his Gemeene Gratie (pp. 380, 596, 600 and 601). Instructive on this score is also what one
reads in Van Zonde en Genade, by H. Danhof and H. Hoeksema (pp. 106, 107).
In
the Stone Lectures, it is especially the element of the positively good
development of mankind as such that is placed on the foreground. This the reader can assure himself of once more
by reading our first article in this series.
In fact, Kuyper tells us, “The chief purpose of my lecturing in this
country was, to eradicate the wrong idea that Calvinism represented an
exclusively dogmatical and ecclesiastical movement” (p. 231). Calvinism is also ecclesiastical— it also
follows the line of saving grace—but that is not the whole story. There is, besides this, also
another aspect of Calvinism, and that is the positively good development in the
world as world of mankind.
This
dualism is reflected in all of Kuyper’s later works. It is the ever-recurring theme in his Dictaten
Dogmatiek. One finds it in the following
Loci: “De Providentia,” “De Peccato” (concerning sin), “De Foedere” (concerning
the Covenant), and “De Magistratu” (concerning the magistrates)—in a word, in
all the subjects treated, both in his Stone Lectures and in his Dictaten
Dogmatiek. And this dualism is
reflected finally in his Locus, “De Consummatione Saeculi.” Also here Kuyper speaks of the two lines in
history. The one is “Creatio, de
Anthropologie en de Harmartologie [doctrine of sin—GL] met hare gevolgen in de
in de ‘miseria et mors’ [misery and death—GL] en op de lijn der gratia ligt de locus
de Christo, de Salute [applied salvation—GL] de Ecclesia” (p. 4). We said this dualism is reflected here, although
it should be obvious that it is not directly taught.
What
is most obvious is that Kuyper fails to bring this dualism to a unity of conception. This is as clear as the day when one asks the
question: Is there really a Consummation of this high development of
mankind as mankind? Where is the ripened
fruit? What happens to all the high
development of mankind? For according to
Kuyper, it is positive development of the human race.
As
for the “future” of “common grace” Calvinism, Kuyper is pessimistic. It has stopped at the western banks of this
American continent. “The one world-stream,
broad and fresh” … Where does it empty its final content? Kuyper does not tell us. Why not?
He cannot. Mankind as such has no
consummation! The purely “secularized
world” God will destroy.
But
we are anticipating. Let us return to
our subject.
Kuyper
is not afraid to draw this dualistic line all the way. This means that in the fundamental and
primordial threefold relationship of God, fellowman and creation there is in
both lines a positive good. Not
merely in the realm of God’s special grace of the regenerated man—the renewed
man who stands in the proper relationship to God, his neighbor and his
possessions—Not at all! In the world of
unregenerated man, there is also a positive good in all these fundamental
relationships!
1.
In the restrained sinner’s relationship to God. Hence, as a religious being, there is something
good. There is in fallen man still the “semen
religionis” (seed of religion) and the sensus divinus (the sense of
God). For there is the light of the Logos
in every man! To quote Kuyper:
To be sure there is a concentration of
religious light and life in the Church, but then in the walls of this church,
there are wide open windows, and through these spacious windows the light of the
Eternal has to radiate over the whole world.
Here is a city [common grace—GL], set upon a hill, which every man can
see afar off. Here is the holy salt that
penetrates in every direction [common grace—GL], checking all corruption. (Calvinism:
Six Stone-Lectures, p. 63).
2.
Also in man’s relationship to his fellowman.
Not merely the reborn child of God.
But the man who is under the operation of the restraint of sin. Of him it can be said, as put by Bancroft, “The
fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for
freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the
battle.” Hence it follows that here also
mankind is in a stage of positive development.
3.
Finally, in the unregenerate man’s relationship to the world, that is, in science
and art. This is the stand of Kuyper in
Lectures IV and V.
What
must we say of this? The language here
is most confusing, but when read in the broad context of all the lectures, it
is clear that we have here a basis of common activity for believers and
non-believers alike. In politics,
religion, science and art! And thus, in
this dualism of two concurrent graces we have a perfect synthesis between the
world and the church, between “Jerusalem” and “Athens”!
What
is our reaction toward this and our evaluation of it in the light of the scriptural
and Calvinistically confessional doctrine of the total depravity of man? If this language of the twofold graces with its
resultant conception must be taken seriously, all it can mean is that the
writer has taken the stand of Pelagianism!
This world of mankind as such is then not wholly evil! And far as the dualistic conception is
concerned, it is nothing else but the conclusion of Roman Catholicism in its
doctrine of the superadditum and that of fallen man in puris
naturalibus. Certainly, the way in which
Kuyper and Rome arrive at this conclusion differs. But the final result is the same.
And
this also we cannot but observe. The
positive, good world of Kuyper in its development of religion, politics,
science and art, and that of the humanistic, cannot possibly differ. Both speak of the upward development of
mankind. No humanist has any objection to
this “Calvinism” of Kuyper. One may
object and say Kuyper wanted it all to God’s glory, and that the humanist
objects to. I answer that this latter
remains but an empty phrase somewhat lamely appended, for it does not follow
from his conception!
The
following from Lecture IV: “Calvinism and Science” is from Kuyper’s pen:
It was perceived, on the contrary, that for
God’s sake, our attention may not be withdrawn from the life of nature and
creation; the study of the body regained its place of honour beside the study
of the soul; and the social organization of mankind on earth was again looked
upon as being as well worthy an object of human science as the congregation of
the perfect saints in heaven. This also
explains the close relation existing between Calvinism [the “common grace”
brand—GL] and Humanism. In as far as Humanism
endeavored to substitute life in this world for the eternal, every Calvinist
opposed the Humanist. But in as much as
the Humanist contented himself with a plea for a proper acknowledgement of
secular life, the Calvinist was his ally. (pp. 158-159)
Now
Kuyper separated life in the world from the principle of regeneration. He did not substitute it. In actual fact both Humanism and “common grace”
Calvinism are the same. Only this
Calvinism is far more dangerous than the outright Humanism; for it carries a
misleading title!
Instead
of this dualistic-synthetic conception, we would advocate the organic unity
of the human race. Take the position
that every creature of God is good. And
that in this good world (Creation-creaturehood) both the unbeliever and the
believer live from two antithetically different principles. Thus, the battle of all ages is in this
world. And the regenerated new man looks
in hope for the time when what he now claims in faith may be shown to be his in
very deed. This is the difficult way of
faith, but it is the way of God.
This
is not the position of Anabaptistic-Manichean dualism (see above); neither the
Kuyperian concurrency of two good principles, but all things indeed for the
King. Whether we eat or drink, do it
unto the Lord. For every creature
of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when taken with thanksgiving, for
it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer!
No comments:
Post a Comment