You guys need to find a different term for the ubiquitous view you've called "Dooyeweerdianism," when it's not Dooyeweerdianism! Dooyeweerd affirms the unique status of the institutional church as the sole objective institution of God's Kingdom.
@@TwoAgeSojourner , that's certainly better. But even that is too liable to association with the poor Herman (obviously!). Distorted or corrupted "Neo-Calvinist philosophy" is closer, perhaps. But a lot of the "monists" (Pete Steen/Pittsburgh and ICS Toronto) were actually Vollenhovians. So, really, Neo-Vollenhovians might come closest. Once again, I know that's super inside baseball. I'm not sure how much to lay directly at Vollenhoven's feet, but (if I didn't in our previous discussions) I should have made clear that Steen & ICS were *not* actually students or disciples of Dooyeweerd, but of Vollenhoven. [pronounced FAWL-uh-HOE-fuh]. I've recently discovered that a lot of their background monocovenantalism (!) stems from mixture of influence from Karl Barth, Neo-Calvinist theologian S.G. DeGraaf, and an earlier guy I know very little about, Jan van Andel (1839-1910), a contemporary of Kuyper and Bavinck.
@@TwoAgeSojourner , oh, (another reply here) but guys like Brian Mattson are probably just Neo-Calvinists (of some kind, perhaps distorted ones), no relation to Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven that I'm aware. Ben Miller is not Neo-Calvinist at all (as far as I know). I'm not familiar enough with Cornelius Venema and Tim Scheuers to be sure, but I'd guess they are also ("distorted" perhaps) Neo-Calvinists with no relation to Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven. Unless I'm forgetting someone, Mattson, Miller, Venema, Scheuers, and Wolters seem to be your representatives of "Dooyeweerdianism."
@@reformational I'm sure Mattson and company will be sorry to hear this (Mattson, for one, describes himself as a "as a card-carrying Neo-Calvinist"). But, hey, I'm fine to bar them from the camp :) So, what do we call 'em?
@@TwoAgeSojourner , so if we call Steen & ICS guys "Neo-Vollenhovians", then guys like Mattson are (non-Dooyeweerdian), monocovenantalist (?) Neo-Calvinists. If not monocovenantalists (is Venema?), then I'd specify whatever their other *theological* error is that's driving the distortion of their Neo-Calvinism or view of culture.
When is Part 9 coming?
You guys need to find a different term for the ubiquitous view you've called "Dooyeweerdianism," when it's not Dooyeweerdianism!
Dooyeweerd affirms the unique status of the institutional church as the sole objective institution of God's Kingdom.
Thanks, brother. Give us a suggestion! Neo-Dooyeweerdianism? :)
@@TwoAgeSojourner , that's certainly better. But even that is too liable to association with the poor Herman (obviously!). Distorted or corrupted "Neo-Calvinist philosophy" is closer, perhaps. But a lot of the "monists" (Pete Steen/Pittsburgh and ICS Toronto) were actually Vollenhovians. So, really, Neo-Vollenhovians might come closest.
Once again, I know that's super inside baseball. I'm not sure how much to lay directly at Vollenhoven's feet, but (if I didn't in our previous discussions) I should have made clear that Steen & ICS were *not* actually students or disciples of Dooyeweerd, but of Vollenhoven.
[pronounced FAWL-uh-HOE-fuh].
I've recently discovered that a lot of their background monocovenantalism (!) stems from mixture of influence from Karl Barth, Neo-Calvinist theologian S.G. DeGraaf, and an earlier guy I know very little about, Jan van Andel (1839-1910), a contemporary of Kuyper and Bavinck.
@@TwoAgeSojourner , oh, (another reply here) but guys like Brian Mattson are probably just Neo-Calvinists (of some kind, perhaps distorted ones), no relation to Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven that I'm aware. Ben Miller is not Neo-Calvinist at all (as far as I know). I'm not familiar enough with Cornelius Venema and Tim Scheuers to be sure, but I'd guess they are also ("distorted" perhaps) Neo-Calvinists with no relation to Dooyeweerd or Vollenhoven.
Unless I'm forgetting someone, Mattson, Miller, Venema, Scheuers, and Wolters seem to be your representatives of "Dooyeweerdianism."
@@reformational I'm sure Mattson and company will be sorry to hear this (Mattson, for one, describes himself as a "as a card-carrying Neo-Calvinist"). But, hey, I'm fine to bar them from the camp :) So, what do we call 'em?
@@TwoAgeSojourner , so if we call Steen & ICS guys "Neo-Vollenhovians", then guys like Mattson are (non-Dooyeweerdian), monocovenantalist (?) Neo-Calvinists. If not monocovenantalists (is Venema?), then I'd specify whatever their other *theological* error is that's driving the distortion of their Neo-Calvinism or view of culture.