This period in history was a turbulent one. The French Revolution began in 1789 \u2013 a revolutionary spirit was spreading through Europe. It was a time of shifting worldviews Marx (1818-1883) published his Communist manifesto in 1848 and in 1859 Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of <\/em>Species. The death of Nietzsche in 1900 marked a change in attitude within Dutch culture \u2013 a new form of atheism was emerging that no longer accepted a Christian morality. Science and technology were expected to make the Christian religion superfluous, there was also an increase of interest in new religions. Both Kuyper and Bavinck responded to these changes with a desire to show that Calvinism was the only consistent and coherent world and life view. This Christian world and life view is characterised by creation, fall and redemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuyperians \u2013 followers of Kuyper\u2019s views – would regard themselves as neo-Calvinists and many, but not necessarily all, neo-Calvinists would be Kuyperian. Some of the characteristics of the neo-Calvinist standpoint<\/a> would include the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It should be noted that these characteristics are not a straitjacket for all neo-Calvinists \u2013 the list should not be taken to presume that neo-Calvinism is a monolithic movement. Any living movement is \u2018elastic\u2019 and there is debate over boundaries. For example, Klaas Schilder objected to the doctrine of common grace and Herman Bavinck was less enthused by the antithesis than Kuyper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinism is a development of Calvinism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Both Kuyper and Bavinck were thorough-going Calvinists and held to all the main five points of Calvinism. The reason why they were described as neo<\/em>-Calvinists is that they developed and built on Calvin\u2019s views, as Kuyper wrote in his Lectures of Calvinism<\/em><\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n not to copy the past, as if Calvinism were a petrifaction, but to go back to the living root of the Calvinist plant, to clean and to water it, and so to cause it to bud and to blossom once more, now fully in accordance with our actual life in these modern times, and with the demands of the times to come.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuyper saw Calvinism as a world-and-life system rather than something limited to church circles. He opened up Calvinism from being human-centred, and sin-centred, to being creation-centred. Neo-Calvinism broadened out the scope of the gospel as Bavinck, in The Catholicity of Christianity and the<\/em><\/a> Church<\/em> proclaimed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The gospel is a joyful tiding not only for the individual person but also for humanity, for the family, for society, for the state, for art and science, for the entire cosmos, for the whole groaning creation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinism is not New Calvinism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinism is not to be confused with New Calvinism (see the table below). Neo-Calvinism dates back to the nineteenth century with Kuyper and Bavinck; New Calvinism is a modern twenty-first-century phenomenon, associated with John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Albert Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, and others in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinism rejects any form of sacred\/ secular or nature\/ grace divide<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n A diagram from \u201cborrowed\u201d Wolter\u2019s book Creation Regained<\/em> may help illustrate the problem with a sacred\/ secular divide. If we imagine that this box represents creation in all its variety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are at least two ways we can show the opposition between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world\/ Satan. The first is to draw the line horizontally<\/em> separating the church from the rest of creation \u2013 this is a form of sacred\/ secular dualism<\/strong>. We could also draw the line vertically<\/em> \u2013 this is the neo-Calvinist position. Nothing is secular but sin. It is a rejection of any sacred\/ secular divide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The vertical line represents what neo-Calvinists call the antithesis<\/strong> \u2013 there is an opposition between the spirit and flesh, between the kingdom of God and of darkness. A conflict between thoughts and actions that are done according to the laws and norms of God for creation as opposed to a development that is not in line with what God intends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Creation has a structure and a direction<\/strong>. The structure of creation is unaffected by the fall \u2013 the creation ordinances, norms and laws are still present in reality; what has changed though is the direction<\/em> in which they are taken. The direction can be a positive one, in obedience to God (redemptive); or a negative one, in disobedience to God.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nature and grace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The neo-Calvinist view of nature and grace is not that grace is added to nature or that grace destroys nature, or that grace is of a higher order than nature but rather that grace affirms<\/em> and restores<\/em> nature<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All areas of life need the gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Humans as the image-bearers of God are to unfold and develop the creation in the way God intended, according to his laws and norms \u2013 this is the cultural mandate<\/strong> (Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:15). This \u201csubdue, rule, till and keep\u201d is a command to develop culture, to unfold potentialities latent in the good cosmos God created. It must express Christ\u2019s kingdom everywhere; no area is exempt. It implies that the good creation can be opened up, given added value; the garden can become a strikingly beautiful city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At creation, God gave ordinances, laws and norms<\/strong> for the development of creation. Law in neo-Calvinist perspective is not limited to the Ten Commandments \u2013 there are laws for all areas of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Common grace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Through common grace<\/strong> shown to creation as creation, that dominion over nature mandated before the fall can be realised after it. Common grace has a twofold effect: it curbs the effects of sin and restrains the deeds of fallen humanity; it also upholds the ordinances of creation and provides the basis for Christian cultural involvement; common grace provides the foundation for culture. It also explains why many non-Christians have produced at times inspiring and insightful works. The cultural mandate<\/strong> to develop and fill the earth was not rescinded after the fall into sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sphere sovereignty<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The notion that all areas of life are to be redeemed does not mean, however, a Christianisation of society or the desire to establish a theocracy. Kuyper\u2019s notion of sphere sovereignty <\/strong>mitigates against this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuyper maintained that there are different independent spheres within creation, but God is sovereign over them all. These spheres (such as the state, church, family, art, business and so forth) should remain independent in their own sphere. No one sphere should encroach on another. The State, for example, should not then stipulate how the family should be run. The role of the state is to ensure all the other spheres run smoothly. Likewise, the church should not specify how a school should be managed and the church should not be run as a business. Each of the spheres have their own God-given norms, ordinances as well as their own God-given roles and tasks. It also means that different worldviews could have their own space within society. This approach is often called principled pluralism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinist perspective can be summed up as creation, fall and redemption<\/strong> through Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Creation<\/em>. God created a good creation that is to be unfolded and developed by humans as the image-bearers of God in response to the cultural mandate (Gen1:26-28).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fall<\/em>. The fall disrupted not the structures but the direction of creation. Developing and unfolding the creation could now be done according to the laws and norms of God or against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Redemption<\/em>. Christ came to redeem the whole of his creation (Col 1:18). He will come again to restore his good creation on a new and renewed earth (Rev 21). The transformation of culture is only possible because of what Christ has done and through the work of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinism is the good news that the gospel is for the \u201cwhole groaning creation\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proto-neo-Calvinists<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Neo-Calvinists<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) with his brother-in-law D.H.Th. Vollenhoven (1892-1978) took many of Kuyper\u2019s insights and developed them into a Christian philosophy. Though not all neo-Calvinists adopted this perspective. Neo-Calvinists who accept some form of a Dooyeweerd-Vollenhoven Christian philosophy are usually described by the adjective Reformational<\/strong> (many of these are to be found on www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Non-Reformational neo-Calvinists would include:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Key neo-Calvinist books<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Primary sources<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Secondary sources<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Steve Bishop<\/strong> is an independent researcher based in Wales, UK. He maintains the neo-Calvinist website www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk<\/a>. He is a trustee of Thinking Faith Network<\/a>. He earned his doctorate at the North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa (2019), supervised by Renato Coletto. He is the co-editor of On Kuyper: A Collection of Readings on the Life, Work & Legacy of Abraham Kuyper <\/em>(Dordt Press, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n He has had articles on Kuyperian neo-Calvinism published in Foundations<\/em><\/a>, Koers<\/em><\/a>, Pro Rege<\/em><\/a>, and the Journal for Christian Scholarship<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He blogs here<\/a> and you can follow him on Twitter<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Neo-Calvinism is the view that God\u2019s sovereignty extends over all things \u2013 and that includes scholarship, politics, art, science, mathematics, business, geography, economics, media, law, literature \u2026 as well as family, ethics, church and theology. The term neo-Calvinism was coined in 1897 by one of the first lecturers at the VU Universiteit Amsterdam, Anne Anema (1872-1966). The term originally had negative connotations, but it stuck and became a convenient term to describe the movement. Neo-Calvinism had its origins in the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) were the main initiators…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3869,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,10,104],"tags":[57],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thelaymenslounge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/image.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thelaymenslounge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/image-1.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/thelaymenslounge.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/image-3.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n