PRCA & A. Kuyper

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't understand why the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association wouldn't like Kuyper. :D
 
Originally posted by Mayflower
I heard from a friend of mine that PRCA, does not like KUYPER much. Does anyone know more about this ?
Click to expand...

All I know is its over common grace. Protestant Reformed Church split over liberalizing tendencies in the Christian RC (uninspired hymns in worship, female ministers) as well as b/c they reject the notion of Common Grace. They believe it contradicts total depravity. Much of Kuypers philosophy depends on the belief the unregenerate can contribute good towards society.
 
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Mayflower
I heard from a friend of mine that PRCA, does not like KUYPER much. Does anyone know more about this ?

Here is an articel :

http://www.prca.org/current/Free Offer/chapter9.htm
Click to expand...

Common grace. Also, more than likely, presumptive regeneration.

Think along the lines of the Conclusions of the Synod of Utrecht, 1905.
Click to expand...

Kuyper believed in Presumptive Regeneration? Just curious
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by poimen
Originally posted by Mayflower
I heard from a friend of mine that PRCA, does not like KUYPER much. Does anyone know more about this ?

Here is an articel :

http://www.prca.org/current/Free Offer/chapter9.htm
Click to expand...

Common grace. Also, more than likely, presumptive regeneration.

Think along the lines of the Conclusions of the Synod of Utrecht, 1905.
Click to expand...

Kuyper believed in Presumptive Regeneration? Just curious
Click to expand...

From what I know yes.

At the very least, THEY seem to think so, as per the article cited above.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by poimen]
 
I used to get The Standard Bearer a long time ago. I stopped my subscription after reading attacks against the Reformed Kuyperian doctrine of common grace in almost every single issue. :down:
 
In regards to Kuyper and presumptive regeneration, I have a link to a several part paper discussing this and the effects it has had on the reformed church. The author does not want his paper posted in any form anywhere else, so if interested, please u2u me.

If you read it, I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on how Kuyper's theology(certain points), or perhaps some of his predecessors tinkering with his theology, may have opened the door for the FV winds blowing about the Church today. (This is not an assertion as fact on my part, just a curiosity I wonder about as I read this paper).

Also, another article of interest......

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?76

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by RAS]
 
Originally posted by RAS
In regards to Kuyper and presumptive regeneration, I have a link to a several part paper discussing this and the effects it has had on the reformed church. The author does not want his paper posted in any form anywhere else, so if interested, please u2u me.[Edited on 8-17-2005 by RAS]
Click to expand...

Dear Allan, you can send me that papper. My mail adress is : ralphwilms@yahoo.com

Iam wondering what others on the board, like you Andrew think about critics that they (like PRCA) have on Kuyper like his comman grace. Do you think Andrew, webmaster or others that Kuyper was right or wrong with this ?
 
Ralph,

Originally posted by RAS
Also, another article of interest......

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?76

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by RAS]
Click to expand...

The author of this article is cited in a Standard Bearer article against Kuyper and is typical of their ill-informed and un-Reformed critique of the Kuyperian/Calvinistic doctrine of common grace. They wrongly try to link Kuyperian common grace with worldliness, Universalism, Arminianism and other errors, but end up undermining the Lordship of Christ in all spheres of life, contradicting the Biblical idea of culture, denying the free offer of the gospel and tending towards hyper-Calvinism. I think the Protestant Reformed Church's experience with the CRC blinded them to the truth about common grace, sadly.

For some good reading on common grace and Kuyper's views in particular, I would recommend:

Common Grace by John Murray

Common Grace by Louis Berkhof

Calvin and Common Grace by Herman Bavinck

Calvin and Common Grace by Herman Kuiper

Common Grace and the Gospel by Cornelius Van Til

Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader ed. by James D. Bratt

Lectures on Calvinism by Abraham Kuyper

He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace by Richard J. Mouw

Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Dear Andrew,

Thanks for the repley concerning the critics of Kuyper.

Do you know or have some articels where someone writes a defence of Kuyper against these false accusations like commongrace and his polical views ?
 
Would it be fair to say that critics of Kuyper are looking at his views of common grace without keeping in tension his views/works on Pro Rege or Christ's kingship? Sphere sovereignty without all of the spheres being under the Lordship of Christ is something that I wouldn't want and methinks neither did Kuyper. :2cents:
 
Originally posted by Mayflower
Iam wondering what others on the board, like you Andrew think about critics that they (like PRCA) have on Kuyper like his comman grace. Do you think Andrew, webmaster or others that Kuyper was right or wrong with this ?
Click to expand...

Just to present the other side, I take the same view as webmaster and deny the term common grace and prefer another word to be used such as common bounty or common goodness. See Matt's length treatment of the issue in The Two Wills of God.

Matt argues very well, that the term grace in scripture is always used of Christians, and is defined as unmerited favor. The reprobate do not partake in the favor of God, but rather God uses good things to build up their judgment while here on earth. They are given good things on this earth, but not for their betterment, but to destroy them (Ps 92:7). This is a fine distinction, but one I think is necessary to preserve the biblical use of the term grace.

I do not agree with the PRCA on many issues, and they are definately more dutch than puritan, but on the issue of common grace, I stand with them. They need to be read with caution.
 
John Calvin uses the term "general grace" in the Institutes. Kuiper does a great job of cataloguing every instance in which Calvin uses this term and what he means by it. He and Kuyper are on the same page. It is in the nature of God to be gracious unto all, both the elect and the non-elect, because the long-suffering patience of God and his bountiful goodness to the reprobate as well as to his people, are not merited in any way. We all merit immediate condemnation. But God makes the sun to shine on the just(ified) and the unjust(ified). God gives gifts to all men, whether elect or not, including life, breath, being, talents, daily bread, etc. Hence, because this kindness, this favor, is not merited, it is gracious. Nevertheless, as Calvin and Kuyper both affirmed, God gracious goodness to the reprobate serves to their own damnation, but also to God's glory. The Scriptures specifically link God's grace with his goodness to all:

Ps. 145.8-9: The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. (see also Rom. 2.4)

I think common or general grace is a fine Biblical term, though it is clearly misunderstood by many who both support and oppose the concept that it represents.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top