Nelson Kloosterman has a blog and is using it to promote the thought of Abraham Kuyper among other topics neo-Calvinistic. No surprise there. Admittedly, Kuyper, the Reformed transformer-of-all-trades, master of none, was an impressive figure and blessed with much sound and wise counsel about a variety of matters with which contemporary believers wrestle. If Old Life appears to be critical of Kuyper, it stems as much from the unbecoming adoration he receives as it does from questions about the limits of world-and-live viewism.
And it is here that Kloosterman is useful to illustrate the problem. A few weeks back he quoted from Kuyper’s book on common grace (translated from the Dutch, of course) about the Genesis flood. Kloosterman’s point was that we need to make room for legitimate differences of opinion about such matters as the nature of the flood. The reason seems to be Kuyper. Since he did not follow conventional literalist interpretations about Genesis, so we need to make room for a diversity of perspectives on hot-button issues. One does wonder if this extends to Christian schools. Here’s the Kuyper quote:
An esteemed correspondent has objected to our position that the flood most probably did not cover the entire globe, and in connection with this, that predatory animals perhaps remained alive elsewhere in the world.
Let it be stated immediately that we attach very little importance to this dispute. Our only interest was to emphasize the significance of the protection of humanity against predatory animals.
For the rest, we note that Scripture itself says that “the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” (Gen. 7:19), after which Scripture mentions the highest mountain, Mount Ararat. Nevertheless it is clear that numerous mountains were higher than Ararat.
In the second place, that not all the animals were destroyed appears from the fact that since the flood consisted of water, the fish could not have been killed, but rather received a rare and rich prize of human and animal corpses.
Third, numerous fossils have been found in the earth’s depths, fossils of animals that did not belong to this time period.
Fourth, it is indeed true that in Genesis 8:17 we read that all the animals had to leave the ark, but a literal interpretation of this presents us with insoluble difficulties. Suppose there were eight people, together with a small number of horses, cattle, camels, sheep, goats, etc., and you let loose two lions, two tigers, two hyenas, two snakes, two wolves, two bears, and many more. How could people have defended themselves at this point? What did those animals live on? Would not the entire small stock have been killed within a short time? Were you to say that Noah and his sons might have been animal tamers, or that God might have restrained the predatory animals at that point so that they didn’t attack people, we would certainly admit that these were possible, but precisely at that point justice is not being done to Genesis 9:5.
In any case, we are facing difficulties here that arise from the brevity of the narrative. One person can posit this, while another can posit that, and those opinions should be permitted. But Genesis 8 and 9 are revealed to us not to have a dispute about them. The main point here involves God’s ordinances given to the new human race.
But then along comes another quote from Kuyper, supplied by Kloosterman, which calls for a distinctly Christian contribution to questions about science and faith. Again from the work on common grace, again translated from the Dutch:
The life of particular grace does not stand by itself, but has been placed by God amid the life of common grace. Since Holy Scripture is definitely not limited to opening up for us the way of salvation, but has been given also to enrich common grace with new light, for those who confess that Word not to make this higher light to shine upon the arena of science, which belongs to the field of common grace, constitutes deficient devotion to duty.
What is hard to understand is that many who attempt to follow Scripture on science, and so regard Genesis as more authoritative than the findings of geology, would not be friendly to Kuyper’s views on the flood. I mean, if we are to use special revelation to interpret general revelation when it comes to politics and society, why not when it comes to geology and biology? And yet, Kloosterman regularly denounces 2k for not letting Scripture be the norm for interpreting natural law.
I am struggling to find the coherence in Dr. K’s view, except that it all seems to go back to Kuyper.
Old Life 