For the most part, the critics of 2k do not care for (to put it mildly) the work or arguments of Meredith Kline (who happens to be arguably the most original and creative of Old Westminster’s faculty – and still remained theologically reliable). Those who argue for a 2k-position have generally drawn from the biblical theology of Kline. In my own case, spooked from greater investigation of the Old Testament through my boot camp in seminary Hebrew, I found my way to 2k through a New Testament scholar, J. Gresham Machen, who followed the Old School Presbyterian tradition of the spirituality of the church.
So one fault line in the contemporary debate is Kline and whether you draw from or trash his work.
The other fault line is Herman Dooyeweerd and the tradition of neo-Calvinism that he handed on to 20th-century Reformed Protestantism in the United States. Thanks to his understanding of worldview and the ascendance of neo-Calvinism among evangelical academics since 1960, Presbyterians and Reformed have lost touch with an older understanding of natural law and the two-kingdoms that was part and parcel of Reformed reflection from Calvin and Turretin to Witherspoon and Robinson. This is one of several useful points that David VanDrunen makes in his history of 2k thought in the Reformed tradition. After Dooeyweerd, arguments based on distinctions between general and special revelation, between civil and ecclesiastical realms, between Christ’s creational and mediatorial kingships sound foreign and un-Reformed. The reason is that dualism is bad.
And now to connect the dots comes a section from Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue (thanks to our taller mid-western correspondent). Here we see the fault line clearly exposed even though Kline freely admits that his work is “most indebted†to the Kuyperians for developing a biblical world-and-life-view (after all, he studied with Van Til):
In backing away from the mistake of identifying the city per se with the kingdom of Satan, we must beware of backing into the opposite error of identifying it with the kingdom of God in an institutional sense, an error equally serious and even more common. In the midst of the threatening world environment to which man is exposed through the common curse, the common grace city offers the hope of a measure of temporal safety, but it does not afford eternal salvation. It should not, therefore, be identified with the holy kingdom of God, which is the structural manifestation of that salvation. . . .
Characteristically, members of [the neo-Dooyeweerdian school] have been critical of schematizations that distinguish between the city of man and the city of God. In particular, they would frown on the suggestion that the city of man is common, in the sense of non-holy. They believe that they detect a scholastic nature-grace dualism lurking in any such approach. . . . The Scriptures compel us to distinguish between the kingdom of God as realm and reign and to recognize that though everything is embraced under the reign of God, not everything can be identified as part of the kingdom fo God viewed as a holy realm.
. . . . Unfortunately, however, in a philosophical zeal for an abstract structural monism apparently, the neo-Dooyeweerdians commit themselves to a view of historical reality within which the Creator himself would not be allowed to respond to the Fall with appropriate modifications of the institutional structuring of the original creation. Specifically, he would not be free to introduce a structural dualism in which there coexisted legitimately both holy kingdom institution and non-holy institution. . . .
We must apparently assume that the neo-Dooyeweerdians are prepared to repudiate structural dualism anytime, anywhere in the divinely instituted order. Otherwise it is difficult to explain their out of hand rejection of any and all views that distinguish between the holy kingdom of God and a common sphere (including the state not identifiable as God’s kingdom as just so many examples of scholastic nature-grace dualism. But how fallacious such a stance is becomes manifest when the attempt is made to carry it through to the eschaton and apply it to the eternal abode of the damned. In dealing with the phenomenon we call hell it becomes evident how necessary it is to distinguish in God’s kingly rule between holy realm and sovereign reign. . . .
If philosophical theorizing is to remain under the control and correction of biblical revelation, the neo-Dooyweerdian assumption that all creation can be identified in monistic fashion with the kingdom-realm of God must be abandoned. . . . The sphere of the state, though not exempt from God’s rule and not devoid of the divine presence – indeed, though it is the scene of God’s presence in a measure of common blessing, is, nevertheless, not to be identified as belonging to the kingdom of God or sharing in its holiness. We may not deny to the Creator his sovereign prerogative of creative structuring and restructuring and authoritative defining and redefining. And least of all should we venture to do so in the name of honoring the universality of his kingly rule. (Kingdom Prologue, pp. 168ff)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Kline is saying that 2k is more biblical than anti-2k. He also argues that 2k does more justice to God’s sovereign rule – the Lord has the rights to create a common realm – than 2k’s critics do.
How do you like them apples?.
Old Life 
They are good and crunchy apples.
LikeLike
I can’t tell whether this a further declaration of war or a crumb of peace-making. I lean more toward Kline than Dooyeweerd and so appreciate the reference. I will definitely go back and read that section of Kingdom Prologue. However, it seems already that Kline, while critical of Dooyeweerdians on this point expresses appreciation and finds common ground. Perhaps it would behoove you and Van Drunen to do the same. The common ground, as you have expressed eloquently in recent posts is the rule of God over both spheres.
A good Kuyperian/Dooyweerdian will indeed have a dualism. It’s the dualism of the antithesis. And the antithesis cuts through all aspects of Creation in our present time of redemptive history. As believers live under the rule of the Kingdom in the state and in society, in the professions and trades, in all of life (dare I use that phrase on this blog?), they begin to show what it means to live all of life under the express Lordship of Christ–their lives and service in all of the spheres of Creation are directed toward the rule of Christ. At the same time the antithesis teaches us that the evil world and its citizens still oppose the reign of Christ–their lives and service in all of the spheres of Creation are directed agains the rule of Christ. (Note the use of Wolter’s “direction” idea.) Christ is Lord over all. God created and providentially sustains and rules all that is. So even those opposing Christ in their hearts serve the common good and are under Christ’s Lordship. Thus, history, culture, society “advance” in the various creational spheres via common grace. Of course, special grace is necessary for someone to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God and the Church of Christ and to express the Lordship of Christ willingly and explicitly.
LikeLike
Oh geez. Here come a shoe. Dr. Hart you must have your “Irish” up today. Everyone knows quoting Kline on the internet is just “asking for it.”
LikeLike
Terry, so do you write to the Baylys or Nelson Kloosterman about common ground? 2k has always affirmed God’s sovereignty over everything. The question is how that sovereignty is delegated, executed, or manifested. For some critics of 2k, if you say something good about our nation’s form of government, you have denied God’s sovereignty.
Regarding the direction of unbelievers, here we go with motivation and philosophical consistency. I know plenty of non-Christians who do not think self-consciously all the time about opposing God. I also know that God uses their actions to his ends. So I don’t really know what bit of difference this truth makes unless you’re trying to convince an unbeliever that they need God. Trying to convince them that they are opposed to God — why would we want them to be more self-conscious? Then they wouldn’t be decent and honorable neighbors.
LikeLike
I only read the Baylys or Kloosterman second hand through your glasses 😉 It would be nice to be a professional theologian with time for the blogosphere, but, alas, I’m a lowly chemist. I obviously can’t keep up with your blog and most of the posts are “stale” before I get around to making any comments.
I learned most of this stuff from C. Van Til (didn’t you?). I too am glad that my unbelieving neighbors don’t oppose God and his ways as much as they might. But doesn’t Reformed theology teach us that even in their “decency and honor” that they hate God and their neighbor and that their hearts are desperately wicked above all things unless they are born again by the Holy Spirit (a bit of Heidelberg Catechism there). God restrains sin and rebellion and even directs it to accomplish his ends, and in his common grace allows sometimes for a good society even though some of the citizens are rebels at heart.
I probably agree with some of the fundamental of 2K, but as I have noted to you before, I probably have some sympathy with the social/political implications that I think I hear coming out of Kline, Irons, Van Drunen, you (?) I don’t see the position to be that radically different from a consistent Kuyperianism that recognizes sphere sovereignty and common grace. It’s vastly different than the theonomic arguments. To raise a big red flag, I don’t see much difference in the civil rights for homosexuals arguments between Misty Irons and Jim Skillen. Yet one is coming from a 2K Klinean perspective and one is coming from a Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdian perspective.
Help me see where i’m getting this wrong.
LikeLike
Terry, nothing necessarily wrong with that. The one piece that is missing is that some anti-2k folk like Kloosterman and the Baylys rush to judge the 2k view as un-Reformed and worse — destroying the churches. Folks like Bob Godfrey are not so tyrannical. I think the Kuyperians are feeling threatened because they were used to running the Reformed world. They still do. But some of them, like the Communists, don’t like dissent.
LikeLike
Having spoken to Kline personally about this, one must be careful not to confuse the position he refers to as “neo-Dooyeweerdian” with an actual “Dooyeweerdian” (neocalvinist) view.
Also Kline admitted to not having any specific Dooyeweerdians or neocalvinists in mind, but rather only generally any who would try to use neocalvinist terminology to promote a view that is in reality at odds with neocalvinism.
So there. 😉
LikeLike
Can someone please explain briefly the distinctions between Kuyperian, Neo-Kuyperian, Dooyeweerdian, and Neo-Dooyeweerdian?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Darryl, has anyone considered that Kloosterman or the Baylys may not be accurately reflecting Kuyperianism?
LikeLike
Terry, sure. But where’s the Kuyperian Bible?
LikeLike
Lectures on Calvinism, Principles of Sacred Theology, etc. But, of course, you have a point. That’s sort of my point too. I barely recognize the Kuyperianism that you and David are critiquing. But so-called Kuyperians are also guilty. I’m thinking about an article for The Banner on Whatever Happened to Sphere Sovereignty? I’m compiling a list of sphere sovereignty violations of the CRCNA Synod: Calvin College, synodical discussions on global warming, the relief work of CRWRC, all manner of social justice concerns, etc. Certainly, these are and can be legitimate concerns for Kuyperians, concerned with expressing kingdom principles in all areas of life, but not as church.
LikeLike
Terry, I’ve been having this discussion with Darryl for years about his criticisms of “Kuyperianism,” which are largely things that genuine Kuyperianism opposes. In reply Darryl says he wants a neocalvinist canon, so I have also pointed him to Kuyper’s lectures, and particularly to Dooyeweerd’s ideas as they have been articulated by Roy Clouser. But this is all too highfalutin for Darryl. He wants an reader’s digest canon… one he doesn’t have to bother reading much of or thinking about too strenuously. You’re welcome to join me in the pointless endeavor of encouraging Darryl to distinguish popular, broad Evangelical worldview-ish misconceptions (and other bastardizations) from scholarly neocalvinism.
Allan, roughly speaking Kuyperianism is synonymous with neocalvinism (look it up on wikipedia, seriously), and Dooyeweerdianism is synonymous with “reformational philosophy” (also on wikipedia), which is a further development of earlier neocalvinism. I don’t include the links here, because then the comment would be held for approval.
Anyway, “neo-Kuyperian” and “neo-Dooyeweerdian” are largely meaningless. If they mean anything, the former might refer to those who have been influenced in some nebulous way by a Kuyperian “heritage,” but who have abandoned Kuyperian principles. Mutatis mutandis for the latter. These are the “neos” like neo-orthodoxy (a distortion of orthodoxy)… as opposed to the “neo” of say, neo-classical, which is more like a revival of classicalism, or contemporary development of it (like neocalvinism).
LikeLike
Baus, where’s the love? I read Clouser, I mention that his idea of a biblical worldview has little Scripture in it — maybe more philosophical idealism than Paul — you see the point but don’t respond until this. What I do find curious is that for all the variety among Kuyperians and the violations that Terry mentions, the Kuyperians never police themselves. Instead, they leave their criticism for anyone who questions whether art or philosophy can be redeemed?
LikeLike
Terry, so then why do the neo-Cal’s find 2k so alarming and destructive? It is curious, don’t you think, that you can have the theological problems in the CRC and the violations of sphere sovereignty and all the neo-Cal’s can do is respond that Natural Law is guilty of dualism and that the spirituality of the church is “fundamentalist.” The point that seems to be particularly offensive, though, is the one affirmed throughout the history of the church, that Christ’s kingdom is not bound up with the cultures or societies of this world. In other words, the project of redeeming culture is foreign to almost every expression of Christianity — even the Christendom builders. In which case, neo-Cals really are fundies because they have no category of something in between worldliness and Christian devotion — a category like good, or created, or common. For any activity to be removed from the sphere of profanity it must be saved.
LikeLike
Darryl, you are one of my favorite commentators on issues of church history, confessionalism, liturgy, etc. We just differ significantly on the question of religious meaning of Christians’ cultural activity. So, please know I love you (and your work, for the most part). 🙂
I really do appreciate that you read some Clouser, and I hope you appreciate that neocalvinism is not biblicist, or soft-theonomy, etc. And we (I think Terry would agree) do affirm the spirituality of the church (which is a part of sphere sovereignty).
I do suppose the “self-policing” of Kuyperians among ourselves (and/or wouldbe or nominal Kuyperians) is not so obvious to anti-Kuyperians. Our influence isn’t that great in the CRC, etc.
Let me, yet again, suggest that you are not appreciating the structure-direction distinction (dualism!). This is the key to understanding the neocalvinist approach, and will assist in your quandary over redeeming culture. Yes, if use of the creational (structure) has been profaned (misdirected), then redemption can have efficacy for “re-directing” its use. There is the goodness of the structure (creation), and both fall and redemption (direction) in its use.
Think of Kline’s discussion of the imago in man. There is an “official” (structure) dimension and an “ethical”/normative (direction) dimension. Man remains the good imago in an official dimension after the fall, and yet he must be renewed in the image of God in Christ. You see? This applies directly to man’s cultural activity. Even after the fall, culture is good in its creational-official structure, and yet as use of it (specific cultural acting) is mis-directed by sin and can be re-directed through Christ’s redemption.
Kline can help you be a neocalvinist.
LikeLike
Jeff C.’s idea of the Bible for all of life appears to boil down to Christians not being freed from the Law when they enter the workplace. To me, that’s just a denial of antinomianism. Kloosterman/Bret/Bayly & Bayly and others endorse something that vacillates between a methodological distinction separating Christian plumbers/scientists/economists/mathematicians from non-Christians and Christians being the best workers and most insightful researchers because of their profession.
But the transformationalist commentators, not those working in the fields, are the ones who judge what being the best means. Krugman’s Nobel Prize becomes evidence of widespread rebellion and corruption in modern economics, and the works of Hayek and von Mises are cited as hallmarks of a more faithful age. Neither was Reformed, so neither had access to our illuminating worldview. So they must have discovered the (or at least a) Godly system of economics via common grace, but then the Christian worldview doesn’t seem to be required for much except justifying the elevation of one’s understanding of the natural world to a test for faithfulness.
I don’t see that as anything other than quasi-intellectual legalism, in that schools of economics are a more highbrow concern than playing cards or watching movies, but the people yammering on about them can rarely be bothered to first obtain qualifications in the fields about which they pontificate. With all that said, exactly how does the vision of cultural redemption differ from these for the true Scotsmen among the neocals? (I get that Baus thinks that they can and do. I’m looking for an example of how.)
LikeLike
Baus,
Thanks for taking the time to not pass over my question.
It’s the “neo” before kuyperian and dooyeweerdian that was getting me. I was under the impression that Neo-calvinism simply meant Kuyperianism and that Dooyeweerdianism was an offshoot of Kuyperianism, as you stated.
What contemporary author would you recommend, who is truly a Kuyperian, for an intro into Kuyperianism?
LikeLike
Baus, please don’t try to butter me up. I do count you as one of the saner neo-Cals at least because you don’t react with hysteria to the views here.
But if you are going to compliment me on history, then you may need to swallow hard and think about the history of the Reformed tradition and the novelty of worldview. Does that mean it’s wrong? But it doesn’t mean it is old or even biblical. The history of Augustinianism is rife with dualism. The hostility to dualism comes after Hegel, who was also something of a worldview proponent.
One other layer of the history is that neo-Calvinism has not worked out all that well in the Netherlands or the USA. Kuyper himself was not immune from problems at the end of his life, perhaps losing sight of the import of the church as institution compared to all his other institutions. So am I supposed to put my head in the sand about neo-Calvinism’s influence on the churches, from Amsterdam, to Grand Rapids, to Moscow (ID).
As for the structure-direction distinction, what it fails to see is Kline’s work on the end of the cultural mandate and the end of the original creation. I’m sure you know that consummation or glorification is a category missing in most of the neo-Cal writings. It goes from Creation and Fall to Redemption and re-creation. Kline would have neo-cal’s learn that the point of redemption is not to restore the original structure. It is to do what Adam would have done if he had obeyed — that is, reach a state of blessedness and glorification. In which case, there is great discontinuity between creation redeemed and the world to come. My own sense is that neo-Cal’s want to avoid this because discontinuity doesn’t leave you with much inspiration for building colleges and labor unions if you think they are not going to be around in the new heavens and new earth.
And my other problem with neo-Cal’sm is that it does not derive its understanding of presuppositions from Scripture of doctrine but from German idealism and its aftershocks. I can see how you might use the philosophy to work out some of Scripture’s teaching. But to call presuppositionalism “biblical” and then never refer to Scripture — a la Clouser — seems to be dumbfounding. I get it. His counter will be that I am merely voicing fundamentalist objections. But I don’t need exegesis. I’d simply like some interaction with the catechism or the creed. Where?
LikeLike
Allan, I don’t know if he is Kuyperian but Peter Heslam’s book on Kuyper’s Lectures is a fairly good assessment. One of my own introductions (after Kuyper’s Lectures themselves) was Henry Meeter’s “Basic Ideas of Calvinism” book. Bob Godfrey has a good audio intro. Take a look at “kuyperian[dot]blogspot[dot]com”
Darryl, consummation or glorification is hardly a missing category from neocal writings. Redemption encapsulates both “now” and “not yet”. Neocals are not claiming that redemption restores an original structure because we don’t think sin ruins the good creational structure and we do think redemption is presently a matter of re-direction. We are not trying to “evolve the world” into the one to come.
You clearly misunderstand the way in which Christian presuppositions (in the neocal conception) are related to Scripture. I thought Clouser’s essay on “Christian View of Everything” might help in that regard… but perhaps I can spell it out further at some point.
LikeLike
Merit or ‘Entitlement’ in Reformed Covenant Theology: A Review
LikeLike
Kline can also help you to be a Neo-Pelagian according to a few of his critics.
LikeLike
Charlie, the same could be said of Jesus, even by his followers.
LikeLike
Forgive me for stirring up and old pot, but I’m still catching up on your recent entries.
Seems to me, as Baus notes, your fault-line is faulty, and I don’t think you’ve made a convincing case for this being “2k/Anti-2k.” At the very least, this line from Kline:
“If philosophical theorizing is to remain under the control and correction of biblical revelation, the neo-Dooyweerdian assumption that all creation can be identified in monistic fashion with the kingdom-realm of God must be abandoned.”
indicates that what he has in mind here is neo-Dooyeweerdian vs. Van Til, since the control of biblical revelation is one of Van Til’s central criticisms of Dooyeweerdianisms.
And sure, the history of Augustinianism is rife with dualism. One that comes to mind is celibacy = good, sex = evil, not one I think we want to cling to. As I’ve read it, NeoCalvinism (at least at its best) takes aim at the confusion of ontological dualisms with ethical dualisms (or in Wolters’ terms, distinguishing structure and direction). That’s a valuable (to my mind) correction of Augustinian dualisms, not a complete rejection.
LikeLike
Russ: One that comes to mind is celibacy = good, sex = evil, not one I think we want to cling to.
Actually, that was “marriage is good, celibacy is better.”
Augustine calls intercourse in marriage “chaste.”
Just sayin’.
LikeLike