The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Why the current state of the Netherlands

A friend of my who toured the Netherlands recently bemoaned the current state of godlessness found there despite its rich Christian past. So I am wondering what brought that on?

Can anyone explain or point to articles or analysis of what led to Holland spurning its Christian heritage? It might have just been the reasons for the rest of western Europe, but the Netherlands seem to have fallen further. It was just the beginning of the last century when they elected Abraham Kuyper as PM. He was an acclaimed calvinist theologian who emphasized the 'sphere sovereignty' in that God is ruling in all parts of a person's life. He must have faced bitter opposition, but was there any part of his teaching or civil ruling that may have precipitated the eventual downfall.

Maybe another element in this was the migration of so many dutch to North America. What were the reasons for that - Christian persecution or just economic with the loss of farm land?

Finally, since the Netherlands was seen as mostly calvinism in its Christianity, did the falling away affected Christianity in general in dismissing calvinism from mainstream christian teaching?

John,

Doubtless there are many factors which effected the change in Holland. The very fact that the majority of people were/are unregenerate (totally depraved) is certainly a contributing element. Another reason, IMHO, is Kuyper's strong emphasis on "presumptive regeneration" within the church. This view opens the door wide for unregenerate membership and clergy and the results should be more than obvious.

Actually, this is not an accurate description of "sphere sovereignty".

I refer you to this article for a far better and more accurate definition.

Jeff,

Thanks for the link. I'm thinking that there is a common misconception among many of us Christians in conceptualing 'sphere sovereignty'. I thought it was putting God and His Word into all areas of life. Do you see that as well? I am surprise in the neo-calvinism label the wikipedia article tagged Kuyper with. What does that entail, and does Kuyper fall into that category. I have read comments from you and others about the dangers of presumptive regeneration, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. There are no 2nd or 3rd generation Christians and churches who allow their offsprings into church leadership based on their heritage is a church-killer, well more of a gospel-killer than a church-killer.

While reading Kuyper's entry in "Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Thelogy (published by Baker), I didn't find any negativity toward him with his theology and teachings. I have found this resource to be valuable and accurate. This is a quote contained in the entry,
Maybe there are some confusion with the above quote from the dictionary's entry with how I read it. Does 'his development of . . common grace' means that he introduced the doctrine or just added to an already existing doctrine. I assume the doctrine of common grace has been around long before Kuyper. In addition, I can see if one has a presumptive regeneration view will allow the unregenerate to make the standards,and not God's Word. (I bet he was into the 'golden age' type of postmillennial thinking as well). I might be starting to ramble in my thoughts now but his main error it seems was that he took too lightly the depraved nature of man. For instance, I see nowadays democracy becoming more totalitarianism in nature than in individual freedom which is counter-intuitive in thinking back a few decades ago.

Lastly from left field, his Kuyper thinking represents the difference between the continental Reformed and the Scottish/american Reformed? Probably not in that I would be 'common grace' strongly on the Scottish/american side. Sorry that I lost focused in the last paragraph and a half.

John,

Perhaps you are confusing "neo-Calvinism" with the current "New Calvinism"? They are not the same and in some areas much different.

See if this article helps your understanding: neo-Calvinism.

I will upload another article in a short while, D.v., that will also address one of the major errors of Kuyper and his eventual followers which is a major cause to the destruction of the church.

John,

Here is the other article which I think will be helpful: Recovering Experimental Religion, Sherman Isbell.

Jeff,

Many thanks for Isbell's article. From a quick reading it explains neo-calvinism quite well. I need to go back again and read it more carefully.

Without deep analysis, it seems as if the neo-calvinism movement is the father of many movements that we have seen since. Everything from liberation theology (which might be a stretch), to Christian reconstruction, and to Federal Vision. I want to say theonomy too, but I might be stretching too far.

What about some of the well-known southern theologians - Thornwell and Dabney? Were they influence by neo-calvinism. FVers like to quote them.

John,

I don't think it is only Holland that is in a sad state with regard to godlessness. Unfortunately I don't have a link or a reference right now, but if you read the articles and books by Peter Jones you will see that it also is the case for France. He worked for about 15 years as a missionary in the south of France.

I will add my two pence by saying that humanism, and things like taking the concept of freedom way to far may have added to the situation. I have also heard it a number of times that WWI and WWII had the effect that many people were so shocked by the brutality and suffering of these two wars that they abandoned religion altogether. Or something like that.

But, I believe there still are the "7000" that still calls on the name of the Lord.

Johan

Johan,

I'm not arguiing against humanism as a main factor, but my point was that only a century ago Holland had a Christian theologian as its PM, as compared to the French who ran the Huegonots out long before then.

John,

A century is more or less four generations. I think you in the US can testify to significant changes in just two generations. To find a unique answer to what exactly are the reasons in the case of the Netherlands certainly is not a simple issue.

Also, and I guess you will agree, I don't think that having a Christian theologian as PM is any guarantee of what happens later in a country. I share your feeling that one should have expected some kind of after effect.

I wonder what was the case with Geneva after Calvin left? It might indeed be a very interesting study.

My son worked in Amsterdam for about two years up to three months ago and is in now in Hong Kong. Yesterday he told me that in Amsterdam you cannot talk to people about church while in Hong Kong, a significant number of his colleagues there indeed goes to church on Sundays.

Indeed an interesting question

Johan

I can't say about the rest of western Europe or post Geneva Calvin. But in regards to The Netherlands 4 generations and the USA 2 generations there appears to be opposite christian responses by those claiming to be Christians.

Netherlands had such a strong Sovereignty of God ingrained in the christians that they only stresses a head knowledge of God without emphasing spiritual growth in the individual.

USA on the other hand has a strong independent, individual mindset ingrained in people, even christians that they in practice refuse to see a Sovereign God and we emphasize some form of spiritual growth without God being absolututely Sovereign and His Word as being completely true in all areas of life.

Is this a fact? Or is it a perception?

Johan

I don't know. I thought I read that assertion in the article that Pilgrim linked above in this thread.

Sorry, I didn't realize it came from that article.

Johan

John,

I couldn't find that statement about the Netherlands .... etc. Where did you get it.

Any case, the article by William Dennison is quite interesting. What I had in mind earlier about why Holland is where it now is, is perhaps summarized in the following:


This comes from section IV, p284. The rest of that section is also very interesting.

Johan

That is my deduction of reading the two articles on neo-Calvinism. Am I wrong on this?