In my fourth article on Calvinism and the Future, I shared Abraham Kuyper's argument for a Christian worldview rooted in Calvinism as essential for addressing modern moral crises, critiquing both practical and mystical tendencies in Protestantism for their inadequacy in effecting change. Kuyper advocates a return to Calvinism, emphasizing its historical significance and comprehensive framework for navigating contemporary challenges while cautioning against the dangers of statism.
In this concluding article, I would like to clarify what Kuyper meant by a return to Calvinism. Kuyper, by issuing such a call, does not intend to see that all Protestants will surrender their distinctives and subscribe to a forced uniformity under one ecclesiastical organization. No, he doesn’t speak about Calvinism in the institutional sense. Instead, what he expects to see is a revival of Calvinism’s intellectual, spiritual, and cultural influence in the modern world. Such a call can be subsumed under one program or activity, which is the study of Calvinism. Such a study, on the other hand, includes three aspects: historical awareness of Calvinism’s intellectual and cultural influence, development and application of both the fundamental and subsidiary principles of Calvinism in academic disciplines beyond theology, and unashamed witness of those who still follow this classic heritage.
Historical Awareness
Abraham Kuyper doesn’t believe that uniformity under one institutional banner in this part of life can be realized because none of the sub-traditions within the larger Reformed body is bold enough to claim that it possesses the infallibility of the apostle Paul. He also added that due to the character of Calvinistic confession, which is “deeply religious” and “highly spiritual,” the masses are not ready for it but only suitable to “a relatively small circle” (p. 191). Kuyper added two more reasons for the impracticality of uniformity, but I prefer to limit myself to one more reason, which is the inescapability of the multiformity of the church because of “our inborn one-sidedness” (ibid.).
After negating the possibility of uniformity, Kuyper shared his vision of a revival of the cultural influence of Calvinism that can only be realized through a renewed study of the subject “as a phenomenon of universal significance” (p. 192). It is under this proposal that he expects to see historical awareness, principled application, and unashamed witness.
The reason why Kuyper promotes the study of Calvinism is because he believes that no one can love something that they don’t know the existence of such an object of love. And not only that, he thinks that confining Calvinism to theological studies is one-sided. He argues that Calvinism emerged not from theoretical abstraction, but from life itself. He compared it to a tree that yields sweet fruits to mankind, but no one made a serious attempt to investigate its nature and development.
Consequently, such negligence leads to an unhappy outcome where many of the constructive contributions of Calvinism to culture and society were mistakenly attributed to humanism. For Kuyper, that is the height of ignorance and ingratitude.
To demonstrate such positive contributions, he cited North America as an example:
Allow me, therefore, addressing an American audience, to point out a single feature in your own political life. I have already observed in my third lecture how in the preamble of more than one of your Constitutions, while taking a decidedly democratic view, nevertheless not the atheistic standpoint of the French Revolution, but the Calvinistic confession of the supreme sovereignty of God, has been made the foundation, at times even in terms, as I have pointed out, corresponding literally with the words of Calvin. Not a trace is to be found among you of that cynical anti-clericalism which has become identified with the very essence of the revolutionary democracy in France and elsewhere. And when your President proclaims a National Day of Thanksgiving, or when the houses of Congress assembled in Washington are opened with prayer, it is ever new evidence that through American democracy there runs even yet a vein which, having sprung from the Pilgrim Fathers, still exerts its power at the present day. Even your common school system, inasmuch as it is blessed with the reading of Scripture and opening prayer, points, though with decreasing distinctness, to like Calvinistic origin. Similarly in the rise of your university education, springing for the larger part from individual initiative; in the decentralized and autonomous character of your local governments; in your strict and yet not nomistic Sabbath-observance; in the esteem in which woman is held among you, without falling into the Parisian deification of her sex; in your sense for domesticity; in the closeness of your family ties; in your championship of free speech, and in your unlimited regard for freedom of conscience; in all this your Christian democracy is in direct opposition to the democracy of the French Revolution; and historically also it is demonstrable that you owe this to Calvinism and to Calvinism alone (pp. 192-193).
Kuyper describes the enumerated constructive contributions to American life as “the fruits of Calvinism” (p. 193). Unfortunately, instead of recognition and gratitude, these fruits are ascribed as “blessings of Humanism” (ibid.). The confinement of Calvinism to “a few dogmatically petrified circles” (ibid.) is one reason why such historical ignorance became widespread. Nevertheless, Kuyper insists on a “historic right” to put an end to such an “ungrateful ignoring of Calvinism” (ibid.).
Remember that Kuyper delivered this lecture more than a century ago. However, the above paragraph remains relevant if we reflect on the current condition of American life and culture, particularly when it comes to politics and the growth of government bureaucracy. If Ron Paul, the libertarian spokesman, is accurate in his analysis that both the Democrats and the Republicans are advocating for bigger government with respective focuses such as welfare and warfare, we now realize how far the Americans take for granted the fruits of Calvinism they enjoyed in the past.
Principled Application
By principled application, Kuyper dreams to see the development and application of Calvinism’s principles beyond theology. For Kuyper, this is a must to meet the challenges of today. Such a task must touch “every department of life” (p. 194) and that would include “philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, jurisprudence, the social sciences, literature, and even the medical and natural sciences . . .” (ibid.).
In my years of teaching Church and Society and Theological Prolegomena, both the fundamental and subsidiary principles of Calvinism are already considered acceptable intellectual constructs. Calvinism’s basic principle is the cosmological sovereignty of the Triune God. I intentionally used “cosmological” as an adjective to describe God’s sovereignty to avoid the idea that divine sovereignty is only limited in soteriology or the study of salvation. Yes, God remains sovereign in man’s salvation, but is not limited by it. God’s sovereignty is far broader than the eternal destiny of man, though I consider it very important. Divine sovereignty embraces both creation and providence.
Moreover, from the fundamental idea of Calvinism, Kuyper in his lecture on Calvinism and Politics, deduced a threefold sovereignty: in the State, in society, and the church. From such a system, he argues that Calvinism helps protect our constitutional liberties against the threats of both anarchism (popular sovereignty) and totalitarianism (State omnipotence).
Furthermore, in writing the Editor’s Introduction of Herman Bavinck’s the Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Dr. John Bolt, identified four subsidiary themes derived from Calvinism’s fundamental concept: common grace, sphere sovereignty, distinction between the church as an institution and the church as an organism, and the concept of antithesis. Developing and applying these subsidiary principles, one will realize the far-reaching influence of Calvinism.
Common grace affirms the priority of universal divine sovereignty in creation and providence and its independence from particular sovereignty of divine grace in redemption. This universal sovereignty restrains the impact of sin and bestows general gifts on all people, regardless of spiritual standing before God. At the same time, this universal sovereignty makes human society and culture possible even among the natural man. Based on this interpretation, cultural life is grounded in creation and common grace and has a life of its own apart from the church.
Sphere sovereignty derives its origin from the doctrine of creation and common grace. By this term, Kuyper meant that the family, education, business, science, art, etc., the diverse spheres of human activity do not derive their most important reason for existence and the shape of their life from redemption or the church, but from the law of God the Creator. Because of this, they are relatively autonomous, free from the intervention of the state, and are directly responsible to God. This kind of vision is contrary to all Anabaptist and ascetic Christian versions of world-flight and the medieval Roman Catholic synthesis of culture and church.
From sphere sovereignty, the distinction between the church as an institution and the church as an organism follows. Church as an institution assumes its form around the Word and the sacraments. The church, as an organism, on the other hand, assumes its form in diverse ways as it influences society in the manifold vocations of life. It is this organic form in various Christian social activities, such as schools, political parties, labor unions, and institutions of mercy, that believers serve as salt and light of the world.
Finally, the concept of antithesis. Even though Kuyper is appreciative of many contributions of modernism, he does it judiciously and not without critical assessment. This combined stance of appreciation and critical analysis is the working out of the concept of antithesis, which idea is derived from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. By the virtue of the operation of the third Person in the God head, humanity is divided into two distinct consciousnesses, each has its unique understanding of faith and has developed its own science. Based on this perspective, the conflict between faith and science does not exist. The tension is between two kinds of science, shaped by two kinds of faith.
Unashamed Witness
As already observed, Abraham Kuyper is in favor of freedom and diversity within church life and embraces the contributions of other traditions to enrich one’s own. However, such openness is not contrary to keeping a bold and courageous testimony. Kuyper is deeply troubled by seeing a church and church leaders hiding their Calvinistic stance. He challenges those who claim to adhere to the Reformed faith to live it boldly in word and deed. In his mind, a church that no longer defends its Calvinist roots does not shame Calvinism—it shames itself. Keeping a confident witness does not depend on size. Even if small, a truly Reformed church remains vital, as long as it stays true and full of life.
Conclusion
Ending the sixth lecture, I am hesitant to mention Kuyper’s concluding discussion related to two important terms: selection and election. For him, the first term is associated with conflict and hostility, whereas the second term is associated with peace and harmony.
The doctrine of election is one of Calvinism’s distinctives. Responding to the question whether this doctrine should be abandoned or maintained, Kuyper contrasted it with selection. For him, these two words point to serious problems in our time. He then made an elaborate explanation about the importance of differentiation and applied it to plants, insects, birds, and humans. He describes such differentiation as the “problem of problems” that manifests itself even in social life, by which the theory of selection attempts to provide a solution (p. 196).
The doctrine of election aims to solve a similar problem but in a different way. Instead of chance, blind natural force, or man, Calvinism places it in the hands of the sovereign God. Here’s how Kuyper explained the supremacy of election over selection:
This all-embracing predestination, the Calvinist places, not in the hand of man, and still less in the hand of a blind natural force, but in the hand of Almighty God, Sovereign Creator and Possessor of heaven and earth; and it is in the figure of the potter and the clay that Scripture has from the time of the Prophets expounded to us this all-dominating election. Election in creation, election in providence, and so election also to eternal life; election in the realm of grace as well as in the realm of nature. Now, when we compare these two systems of Selection and Election, does not history show that the doctrine of Election has century upon century, restored peace and reconciliation to the hearts of the believing sufferer; and that all Christians hold election as we do, in honor, both in creation and in providence; and that Calvinism deviates from the other Christian confessions in this respect only, that, seeking unity and placing the glory of God above all things, it dares to extend the mystery of Election to spiritual life, and to the hope for the life to come? (p. 197).
The next paragraph puzzles me, the way Kuyper connects the importance of election to paganism and the Asian crisis. His warning about pagan resurgence and his defense of Calvinism are rooted in the logic of election. For him, only a theology like Calvinism, which embraces the doctrine of election, provides the basis to provide a solution to the world’s final, intensifying spiritual conflicts. Here’s how Kuyper elaborated such conflict:
Do I know of another solution to this fundamental world-problem, enabling me better to defend my Christian faith, in this hour of sharpest conflict, against renewed Paganism collecting its forces and gaining day by day? Do not forget that the fundamental contrast has always been, still is, and will be until the end: Christianity and Paganism, the idols or the living God. . . . The Asiatic question is, in fact, of most serious import. The problem of the world took its rise in Asia, and in Asia it will find its final solution; and, both in technical and material development, the issue has shown that heathen nations, as soon as they awake, and arise from their lethargy, rival us almost instantly (p. 198).
Kuyper laments the disunity and spiritual weakness of Christianity in the face of rising paganism and global threats. He warns that pagan ideas are infiltrating Christian societies. Responding to these threats, a compromise or half-hearted measure has no place. The battle ahead requires clear conviction, principled resistance, and a bold stance. For Kuyper, only a robust and principled Calvinism offers the necessary strength and coherence to stand firm in this global conflict of worldviews.
Half-measures cannot guarantee the desired result. Superficiality will not brace us for the conflict. Principle must again bear witness against principle, worldview against worldview, spirit against spirit. And here, let him who knows better speak, but I for one know of no stronger and no firmer bulwark than Calvinism, provided it be taken in its sound and vigorous formation (p. 199).
Despite Kuyper’s confidence in the long-term outcomes of a renewed study of Calvinism, he humbly accepts that its principles are but tools that God might use to bring spiritual renewal. He affirms that no man can initiate genuine revival; it is God’s prerogative.