An accidental blog

"If God is sovereign, then his lordship must extend over all of life, and it cannot be restricted to the walls of the church or within the Christian orbit." Abraham Kuyper Common Grace 1.1.

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

Glenn Friesen's Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd

Glenn Friesen has a new book published:

Neo-Calvinism and Christian Theosophy: Franz von Baader, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd
Aevum Books, 2015.
ISBN 978-0994775108

The blurb for the book states:

The key ideas of Abraham Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinism do not come from Calvin or from Reformed sources. Their source is the Christian theosophy of Franz von Baader (1765-1841). Among the many ideas derived from Baader are the ideas of a Christian worldview, a Christian philosophy, the idea of sphere sovereignty, opposition to the autonomy of thought, a Free University, the importance of an embodied spirituality, and the idea of our supratemporal heart, the center of our existence. Seeing these ideas in their historical context of Christian theosophy will challenge many of the current assumptions of evangelicals and reformational philosophers who claim to base their worldview and philosophy on Kuyper’s ideas or on the development of these ideas in the Christian philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977).

Part 1 of this book traces the reception of Baader's ideas by Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye and J.H. Gunning Jr., who then introduced Baader’s Christian theosophy ideas to Dutch Reformed theology. Chantepie de la Saussaye and Gunning transmitted these ideas to Kuyper, who acknowledges their influence. Kuyper refers to Baader’s writings with approval, and incorporates many of his ideas.
Part 2 is a history of the development of Dooyeweerd’s Christian philosophy, and of the very different philosophy of his brother-in-law Dirk Vollenhoven. Whereas Dooyeweerd chose to incorporate the ideas of Christian theosophy, Vollenhoven did not. They disagreed with respect to almost every idea in their philosophies.
Part 3 is a detailed examination of Dooyeweerd’s Christian philosophy. Although Dooyeweerd was not at all forthcoming about his sources, it is clear that there is a deep historical connection of his philosophy to Baader’s Christian theosophy, as well as to other mystical and non-Reformed sources. This insight allows us to understand many previously obscure parts of his philosophy and to correct previous misinterpretations of his work. It also opens the way for ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue.

1 comment:

Steve Finnell said...


The confusion of the meaning of "eis" in Acts 2:38 is the result of honest misunderstandings, deception, falsification, lies, pride and a total disregard of logic, as well as the denial of translations of the Bible as being accurate.

Those who deny that "eis" has been translated correctly as "for" in Acts 2:38 claim that "eis" should have been translated as "because of".

First let me say in sixty plus translation that I have read not one of them has translated "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of".

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)

For, always looks forward. If you repent and are immersed in water your sin will be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For is in the future, not the past.

Because of, always looks backwards. If the 'for' of Acts 2:38 actually means, because of, then Peter was telling them to repent because their sins had already been forgiven. Was Peter telling them to repent and be baptized because their sins had already been forgiven and they already had received the gift of the Holy Spirit? Of course not.


Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for the remission of sins.(NKJV)

In Matth 26:28 "for" the remission of sins looks to the future. Jesus did not shed His blood "because of". Jesus did not shed His blood because the sins of mankind has already been forgiven.

There is no translation that translates "eis" as "because of " in Matthew 26:28. Because of, always looks back. For always looks forward.

The only way to believe that "eis" has been mistranslated in Acts 2:38 or Matthew 26:28 is by self deception.

For does not mean, because of. All the lies, honest misunderstandings, and pride cannot change the meaning of "FOR".

For means, in order to. For does not mean, because of.

Forgiveness follows the shed blood of Jesus. Forgiveness follows repentance and immersion in water.


Posted by Steve Finnell at 12:34 PM No comments:
Email This
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Links to this post