Dooyeweerd: Key of Knowledge - Question of Life and Death

(Image developed from original key photo by Evan-Amos)

Key of knowledge - 

Question of life and death

by Herman Dooyeweerd

      Thus the central theme of the Holy Scriptures, namely, that of creation, fall into sin, and redemption by Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit, has a radical unity of meaning, which is related to the central unity of our human existence. It effects the true knowledge of God and ourselves, if our heart is fully opened by the Holy Spirit so that it finds itself in the grip of God's Word and has become the captive of Jesus Christ. So long as this central meaning of the Word-revelation is at issue, we are beyond the scientific problems both of theology and philosophy. Its acceptance or rejection is a matter of life or death to us, and not a question of theoretical reflection. In this sense, the central motive of Holy Scripture is the common supra-scientific starting-point of a truly biblical theology and of a truly Christian philosophy. It is the key of knowledge of which Jesus spoke in his discussion with the Scribes and lawyers. It is the religious presupposition of any theoretical thought, which may rightly claim a biblical foundation. But, as such, it can never become the theoretical object of theology - no more than God and the human I can become such an object.

...I am sorry if my explanation concerning the scientific field of research of dogmatic theology seem not clear at first sight. The difficulties and questions to which it gives rise do not concern the divine Word-revelation, but exclusively the scientific character and bounds of a theological dogmatics and exegesis. And it is necessary 'ad humanam salutem' ['for human salvation'] to go into these difficulties in a serious way. For dogmatic theology is a very dangerous science. Its elevation to a necessary mediator between God's Word and the believer amounts to idolatry and testifies to a fundamental misconception concerning its real character and position. If our salvation be dependent on theological dogmatics and exegesis, we are lost. For both of them are a human work, liable to all kinds of error, disagreement in opinion, and heresy. We can even say that all heresies are of a theological origin. Therefore, the traditional confusion between God's Word as the central principle of knowledge and the scientific object of theological dogmatics and exegesis must be wrong in its fundamentals. For it is this very confusion which has given rise to the false identification of dogmatic theology with the doctrine of Holy Scripture, and to the false conception of theology as the necessary mediator between God's Word and the believers.

...Let us first consider how the Word of God presents itself to us in its full and actual reality. The divine Word-revelation has entered our temporal horizon. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. This was the 'skandalon' which was equally raised by the incarnation of the Word-revelation in the Holy Scriptures, a collection of books written by different men in the course of ages, be it through divine inspiration, yet related to all the modal aspects of our temporal horizon of experience. It is, however, only under the modal aspect of faith that we can experience that this Word-revelation in the Scriptures has been inspired by the Holy Spirit. And the actual belief through which we know with an ultimate certainty that it is so, cannot be realized in the heart, that religious center of our consciousness, except by the operation of the Word itself, as a spiritual power. What makes the diversity of books of the Old and New Testament into a radical spiritual unity? Their principle of unity can only be the central theme of creation, fall into sin, and redemption by Jesus Christ in the communion of the Holy Spirit, since it is the key to true knowledge of God and self-knowledge. We have established that, in its central spiritual sense, as divine motive power addressing itself to our heart, this theme cannot become the theoretical object of theological thought, since it is the very starting point of the latter, insofar as theology is really biblical.

From the foregoing it may appear that there must be a difference in principle between creation, fall and redemption in their central sense as the key to knowledge, and in their sense as articles of faith which may be made into the object of theological thought. Insofar as Reformed theology, too, was influenced by the scholastic basic motive of nature and grace, it also developed dogmatic views which must be considered unbiblical. The Jewish Scribes and lawyers had a perfect theological knowledge of the books of the Old Testament. They wished, doubtless, to hold to the creation, the fall, and the promise of the coming Messiah as articles of the orthodox Jewish faith which are also articles of the Christian faith. Nevertheless, Jesus said to them: "Woe unto you, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge!" (Luke 11:52).

This key of knowledge in its radical and integral sense cannot be made into a theoretical problem. The theologian can only direct his theological thought to it with respect to its necessary supra-theoretical presupposition, if he is really in the grip of it and can bear witness to its radical meaning which transcends all theological concepts. But when he does so, he is not in any different position than the Christian philosopher who accounts for his biblical starting-point, or the ordinary believer who testifies to the radical sense of God's Word as the central motive power of his life in Jesus Christ. In other words, the true knowledge of God in Jesus Christ and true self-knowledge are neither of a dogmatic-theological, nor of a philosophical nature, but have an absolutely central religious [ie directed to ultimate Origin of selfhood] significance. This knowledge is a question of spiritual life or death. Even orthodox theological dogmatics, however splendidly elaborated, cannot guarantee this central spiritual knowledge.” 

(Herman Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought, from pp 86,87, 100)

The above book is available HERE

________________________

Dooyeweerd: How is philosophical thought possible as theoretical thought?

Dooyeweerd:

How is philosophical thought 

possible as theoretical thought? 

(Extract from 

REFORMATION AND SCHOLASTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY VOL II, pp 94-96)

How is philosophical thought possible as theoretical thought? The Philosophy of the Law-Idea opens its transcendental critique with this question, which is directed toward every possible philosophy. The question therefore is not restricted to a Reformed philosophy. Rather, it first of all confronts traditional and modern philosophy with a fundamental problem, since this philosophy starts from the assumption that theoretical thought is autonomous in relation to faith. This problem is transcendental in nature, for it has to do with the boundaries of philosophy. It is concerned with the pre-existing structure of theoretical, philosophical thought, which makes this thought possible to begin with.

This pre-existing structure cannot itself be philosophical in character. Rather, it is a law-governed framework that lies at the foundation of all the activity of philosophical thought; for if philosophical thought departs from this framework, it will lose its philosophic character. And, as I have already observed, the a priori or pre-existing nature of this structure lends it universal validity; that is, it is binding for philosophical thought regardless of the subjective starting point of the thinker.

Nevertheless, this universally valid structural law of theoretical, philosophical thought can only be examined in the theoretical, philosophical attitude of thought. One might begin by believing that such a structure exists, but that would not yet disclose its actual character to our scientific insight. And that is precisely what is needed. For if there is to be any discussion on the question of whether philosophical thought can indeed function independently of a faith commitment, one must first render a scientific account of the nature of this thought.

Hence, if philosophy wishes to proceed in a truly critical manner, it must begin by directing its inquiry toward its own presuppositions. The dogma that theoretical reason is autonomous may in no way be taken as a self-evident consequence of the structure of philosophic thought. That would amount to a dogmatic elimination of the basic critical problem that I formulated at the beginning of this section. Nor may we demand, however, that the proponents of this dogma begin by abandoning it; that, too, would be tantamount to a circumvention of the transcendental basic problem of philosophy by means of a dogmatic statement. One then would simply be countering the dogma that theoretical reason is autonomous with the dogma that it is determined from a supra-theoretical standpoint by presuppositions of faith. And in that case, our critical insight into the nature and structure of philosophical thought would not be enriched in the least. We would merely end up with a confrontation of dogmatic points of view.

At the start of our critical inquiry we may not demand of any thinker that he abandon any dogmatic conviction. There is only one strict condition that must be laid down for a truly critical attitude of thought: the thinker must be prepared to put aside the dogmatic prejudice that regards the postulate of philosophy’s autonomy as purely theoretical and scientific in character. For this prejudice alone bars the way to a critical investigation of the basic problem I have formulated. It simply passes off as a scientific, theoretical judgment what is nothing but a dogma, an unreasoned conviction of faith.

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea makes no claim whatsoever that its transcendental critique of philosophical thought could be undertaken independently of a dogmatic conviction of faith. If it did, after all, it would itself have to begin by accepting the autonomy of theoretical reason as a purely theoretical presupposition, which would be held up as a criterion for deciding whether further inquiry is scientific or not. On the contrary, this philosophy openly avows that it launches its transcendental theoretical critique from the Christian religious standpoint. It remains critical in doing this, however, since from the outset it distinguishes sharply between its faith conviction and all judgments that are intrinsically scientific.

In other words, the Philosophy of the Law-Idea does not mask its starting point. It begins rather by making a sharp, critical distinction between theoretical judgment and supra-theoretical prejudgment. Because of this, no one can become the victim of an artfully disguised trap as he follows our inquiry into the transcendental basic problems of philosophy. One can be confident that no judgment of faith will here be held up as an intrinsically scientific thesis. Indeed, the precise purpose of our transcendental critique is to compel thinkers to render their own account of the true nature of the prejudgments from which they set out.

(Extracted from Reformation and Scholasticism in Philosophy, Vol II, Paideia Press, 2013, pp 94-96)

The above book is available HERE

——————————————————————————

Herman Dooyeweerd: The individuality structure of an apple tree

Herman Dooyeweerd:

The individuality structure 

of an apple tree

(Extract from ‘Reformation and Scholasticism’ Vol 2)

Let us take as our example the individuality structure of an apple tree. This tree without a doubt functions in the first three aspects of reality: those of number, space and motion. So long as we leave aside the typical structure of the individual whole the tree does not yet exhibit any individuality types in these aspects whereby it would portray its particular nature. That changes as soon as we zero in on the aspect [aka modality, law-sphere etc (see diagram below)] of organic life as it finds its typical place in the structure of the tree. Here the tree as such displays an original or nuclear type of individuality which simply cannot be dispensed with.

What place does this modal aspect then occupy in the structural whole of the tree? It is the function of organic life, which is the last subject function that the tree has in the order of the modal aspects. In all later aspects the tree has only object functions. A tree has no subjective feelings or sensations, but it does have objective properties in the sensitive aspect, which, standing as it does in typical intermodal relations with the biotic, physical, spatial and numerical aspects, can function only in a structural relation with possible subjective sensations. The tree does not think as a subject, but it is thought of in its objective logical characteristics which exist only for possible subjective concept formation. It is not the subject of cultural activity in the historical aspect, but it can become a cultural object, just as it has structural object functions in all later aspects, which, however, can be disclosed or realized only by humanity. A tree possesses potential object functions even in the moral and the faith aspect, functions that are part and parcel of the tree’s full temporal structure. It can become an object of love or hate and an object of faith.

Object functions of natural things in the moral and faith aspect

If there is anything that is imprinted on us by Holy Scripture, it is this integral character of the temporal reality of natural things. The notion, imported into the view of reality by both the Greek substance-concept and the humanist science ideal, that normative qualities [the normative modalities are the analytical aspect and all those aspects above it on the chart below)] do not belong to the “thing in itself” but rest exclusively on the subjective appreciation of human consciousness—this notion is definitely unscriptural and at odds with the primary given of our naive experience of reality.

Christ Jesus in faith rebukes the storm, and it subsides; he curses the fig tree that bore no fruit, and it withers; he blesses the few loaves and fish, and they feed thousands. Modern science in its pride explains these miracles away; the supernaturalism of Roman Catholicism has these miracles take place in circumvention of “nature.” If the Reformational view rejects both positions, how can one at the same time uphold a philosophical view of reality which denies natural things all objective reality in the moral sphere and the sphere of faith?

For that matter, this view of reality is self-refuting. For example,whoever follows the natural science ideal and ascribes real existence to the tree only in the aspects that are investigated by mathematics-based natural science, such a person is guided by the faith that the tree is merely a “product of nature.” To think that natural science teaches this is a naive misunderstanding. For science begins by consciously setting aside all aspects that it is not interested in. But the subjective faith in question, which is in conflict with the Christian belief in creation, pertains to an objective state of affairs in the sphere of faith. Either the tree is objectively a creature of God, or it is not; therefore it ought to be either the object of belief in creation or else an object of faith in the sovereignty of natural science. 

Whoever claims truth for his faith cannot deny the subject-object relation in the sphere of faith. To attain a proper understanding in subject-object relations one should of course bear in mind that the object functions of natural things in the moral and faith aspect are of a fundamentally normative character. That means that the disclosure and realization of these functions by man can take place not only as conforming to but just as well as in conflict with the modal norms in question.

In a pagan society, for example, a tree can play an objective, idolatrous role in the life of faith, in the same way as a tree under the idolatry of the naturalistic science ideal turns into an object of idolatrous faith in the dominant power of natural science. But it is always related to reality-based objective states of affairs which are potentially present (i.e., by predisposition) in the structure of natural things and which cannot be reduced to purely subjective vantage points from which human consciousness views things.

The curse that man’s fall into sin brought down on the whole earth is a reality. Out of the faith aspect it pervades all aspects of reality. It does not leave intact the reality of natural things that are created with a temporal structure. Within the temporal horizon there is no such thing as a Ding an sich whose reality is closed off in the pre-logical aspects [ie aspects beneath the “analytical” law sphere on the diagram below] and so falls outside structural subject-object relations in the normative law-spheres.

(Extract from ‘Reformation and Scholasticism’ Vol 2, pp 250-252)

Free download of this and other Dooyeweerd books HERE

The 15 EXPERIENTIAL, 

MUTUALLY IRREDUCIBLE, 
LAW-SPHERES of COSMIC TIME 

(Also called Aspects/ Modes of Consciousness/ 
Modalities/ Modes of Meaning)

Herman Dooyeweerd: Why philosophy cannot be degraded to a handmaiden of theology

Johannes Vermeer: ‘A Maid Asleep’ (c 1656-1657)

Herman Dooyeweerd: 

Why philosophy cannot be degraded to a handmaiden of theology 

(Translated by Magnus Verbrugge) 

Why have systematic theologians offered so many misconceptions regarding the idea of a Christian philosophy? In the final analysis, these can all be traced back to their lack of insight into the internal point of contact between philosophy and the Christian religion. 

Theologians failed to understand that the religious ground-motive, in which philosophical thought is rooted, controls one’s entire philosophic view of the intrinsic structure of temporal reality. Instead, they started by accepting philosophical conceptions of reality rooted in unscriptural, dualistic ground-motives; and they then sought, in a merely external theological fashion, to accommodate these conceptions to Christian doctrine. They therefore also did not see that the Scriptural ground-motive of the Christian religion [Origin-commitment] has a central significance for the internal progress of philosophical inquiry, since it overturns the whole unscriptural view of the structure of temporal reality at its very root. They did not look for inner reformation but only for external accommodation; and in so doing they never found the way to a genuinely Christian philosophy. 

The method of adapting non-Christian philosophy to the basic truths of the Christian religion caused great harm. Patristic writers and subsequently Augustinian and Protestant scholastics thought they could strip Greek philosophy of its pagan features by depriving it of all independence and turning it into a “handmaiden.” Thus it was put to so-called formal use in systematic theology and theological ethics. This effort, however, proved to be fatal both for Christian theology and for philosophy. 

Philosophy will not allow itself to be degraded to the role of a handmaiden of theological science. Its concepts and ideas are not purely formal in character. They have their own philosophical content and belong in a comprehensive theoretical view of temporal reality, a view that is always determined by a religious ground-motive. 

***** 
[…] In light of all this, how could it be possible to adapt to Christian doctrine a philosophic conception of reality that is entirely controlled by the dualistic form-matter motive (for example, the conception of reality offered in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, or the philosophical epistemology developed in his Logic)? Such an attempt at accommodation will in reality have consequences that are utterly different from those intended. Although the philosophical conceptions mentioned above may purportedly be incorporated into theology for merely “formal use,” they will inevitably have a material influence on the theological understanding of Christian doctrine. Indeed, they will even end up playing a dangerous role in the theological exegesis of Scripture. I will present various examples of this in my critical examination of the scholastic concept of substance.

The road of accommodation thus leads to a dead end. The concern of truly Christian philosophy is not to accommodate “philosophy” to Christian doctrine, which in actual practice rather proves to be an accommodation of Scripture to unscriptural philosophy. On the contrary, its concern is the inner reformation of philosophic thought while preserving its unique, intrinsic nature.

The point of contact between philosophy and the Christian religion cannot be external in nature, as it was conceived in theological scholastic philosophy. Such a view conflicts with the intrinsic nature both of philosophy and of the Christian religion. Philosophy has a different task, a field of inquiry that differs from that of systematic theology. The Christian religion guarantees that we have an internal point of contact with philosophy, for it reaches to the religious [Origin-founded] root of the whole of temporal reality. Philosophy investigates this structure of reality. Christian philosophy therefore can mean one thing only: a radical transformation of philosophy’s root and starting point. Such a radical conversion, such an inner reformation, will fully preserve philosophy’s sphere-sovereignty in relation to both theological science and church doctrinal authority. In addition, philosophical thought will truly be reformed within because its philosophic view of the whole structure of created reality will be transformed. 

***** 
One necessary implication of the foregoing is that Bible texts can no longer be appealed to in intrinsically philosophic inquiry in order to sanction particular scientific views. On the other hand, however, in laying the Christian foundations of philosophy the Scriptures, and subordinated to it the confessions, will now indeed become the only sources. All philosophical problems must be probed down to their religious [Origin-founded] root, and at that point only the divine Word-revelation can shed light, a light which illumines the whole philosophic view of the structure of reality but which, in the nature of the case, can never itself provide the solution to an intrinsically scientific problem. 

This is, therefore, indeed a radical reversal of the standpoint of accommodation taken by Augustinian and Protestant scholasticism. There, after all, the use of Scripture to address intrinsically philosophical questions was an indispensable requirement for the “Christianization” of philosophy. This was necessary because, in adopting Greek or scholastic philosophy, the Augustinians and Protestants also implicitly adopted the religious [ultimate-origin] ground-motives on which they were based. And the more alien the foundations of their philosophy were to the Christian religion, the more copious, on this standpoint of accommodation, became their appeals to Bible texts in order to sanction their philosophic views and concepts. “Profane wisdom,” after all, had to be brought into agreement with Scripture; it had to be adapted for “theological use.” 

If the divine Word-revelation really is used to “solve” scientific problems, however, then it cannot be the foundation of science. The foundation must lie at a lower level than the building that will rest on it, and it must be of a different nature.

(From REFORMATION AND SCHOLASTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY Volume 2, pp 46,47, by Herman Dooyeweerd. Originally published 1943-50. Translated by Magnus Verbrugge. Paideia Press, [Vol 5/2], 2013)

——————————————-

[NOTE: “Religious” = “the innate impulse of the human selfhood to direct itself toward the true or toward a pretended absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning” (Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought]. 

——————————————-

For this and many other free Dooyeweerd book downloads:

http://herman-dooyeweerd.blogspot.com

Herman Dooyeweerd: The Philosophy of the Law-Idea: The firm ground of temporal reality is beyond time

Our Archimedean point itself finds anchorage in the Living God to Whom "we draw near with a sincere HEART" as ultimate ground and source of meaning, "firm and secure within the veil". Idolatry represents a doomed rebellious attempt to find anchorage and ultimate personal and cosmic integration somewhere within abstract theory or within time. (Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh)

Herman Dooyeweerd: 

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea:

The firm ground of temporal 

reality is beyond time 

Despite all its efforts, the new reformational movement in philosophy appears to have been forced into isolation in today’s intellectual-spiritual climate. Thus it is compelled to do battle on every front. Indeed, this battle must be waged even with Reformed thinkers as they analyze the spiritual legacy of Abraham Kuyper, the father of the Calvinist revival in the nineteenth century.

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea has broken radically with traditional notions of a “Christian philosophy.” Its demand for a reformation of philosophical thought entails the precise opposite of scholastic attempts at accommodation. Although it is rooted in the Scriptural starting point of the Calvinist reformation, it does not try to base itself on scientific-theological dogmatics. While openly confessing that it is bound to the ground-motive of the divine Word-revelation, it simultaneously wages a relentless battle against every form of philosophical dogmatism that puts all its confidence in philosophical thought and pretends that its religious [ie ultimate Origin] presuppositions are theoretical axioms.

In this regard the Philosophy of the Law-Idea is the critical exponent of the antidogmatic spirit of our age; but it turns its radical critique of philosophic thought equally against the most recent philosophical currents that reveal the relativistic basis of this spirit. Following Kuyper it champions the sphere-sovereignty of science, while simultaneously denying its independence from faith and religion. It also defends the scientific character of philosophy and therefore remains systematic, since without systematic thought no science is possible. But it combats every closed system, since that would lead to scholastic fossilization and rob philosophical thought of its spiritual dunamis.

It unmasks the philosophical dogmatism that is present in the so-called antidogmatic stance of contemporary philosophy insofar as the latter clings to the immanence [exclusively temporal] standpoint. By virtue of its reformational ground-motive it has begun in its philosophical system a principled battle against the scholastic tradition, even where this comes to expression in Reformed thought.

Nevertheless, it recognizes the scientific value of classic scholasticism, found in its often profound philosophical insights. In the same manner it also wishes to do full justice to ancient Greek and modern humanistic philosophy. It steadfastly opposes, however, every attempt at synthesis between the Christian ground-motive and the ground-motives of unscriptural philosophy.

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea also maintains the historical continuity of philosophical thought, but with the express proviso that there is radical discontinuity in the religious ground-motives and in the basic philosophical ideas dominated by them. It nourishes itself upon the whole tradition of philosophical thought and thus fully recognizes its own historical conditioning; but in its basic conception it nevertheless sets itself against that philosophical tradition.

In its philosophical view of temporal reality it is fully dynamic, since it looks for the firm ground of this reality beyond time and does not ascribe self-contained existence to the creaturely realm. Rather, it sees the entire temporal cosmos involved in a process of disclosure which expresses the restless, origin-directed, tendency towards the consummation of all things.

In all this movement, however, the Philosophy of the Law-Idea simultaneously recognizes the presence of constant creational structures. It rejects rationalism and intellectualism, but stands equally opposed to irrationalism and voluntarism.

On first consideration, the position of the Philosophy of the Law-Idea might appear to be paradoxical on many of these points. Measured by traditional yardsticks it is out of step and elusive. In order to bring its true meaning to light, I will first have to clear up a series of misconceptions that tradition has attached to the idea of a Christian philosophy.

(From REFORMATION AND SCHOLASTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY Volume 2, pp 26-27, by Herman Dooyeweerd. Originally published 1943-50. Translated by Magnus Verbrugge. Paideia Press, [Vol 5/2], 2013)

——————————————-

[NOTE: “Religious” = “the innate impulse of the human selfhood to direct itself toward the true or toward a pretended absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning” (Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought]. 

——————————————-

See also post -

Musing on Archimedean point

——————————————-

For this and many other free Dooyeweerd book downloads -

http://herman-dooyeweerd.blogspot.com

Herman Dooyeweerd: Christ Jesus the new life-giving Root of humanity

Jan Davidz. de Heem: Festoon with Flowers and Fruits (1670)

Herman Dooyeweerd: 

Christ Jesus the new life-giving

Root of humanity

The significance of common grace in the reformational worldview can only be understood in the light of the radical antithesis that exists between the ground-motive of the Divine Word-revelation and the ground-motives of apostate religions. Common grace is the opposite of the Roman Catholic motive of “nature.” In the dialectical ground-motive of nature and grace, human nature remains a relatively autonomous factor over against the grace of Christ Jesus. The realm of nature here is the place where a synthesis is struck between the creation motive of Scripture and the dialectical ground-motive of the Greek world of thought.

The common grace of Scripture, by contrast, is the effect of the antithetical operation of the religious [ie ultimate root] ground-motive of the Divine Word-revelation. Beginning with the promise made in Paradise, which was fulfilled in Christ Jesus in the fullness of time, this ground-motive has been at work in opposition to the principle of apostasy [ie rejection of Christ]. It has suspended the final judgment of our fallen world and held in check the unhindered effects of spiritual death that resulted from the fall into sin.

This grace is a common grace (gratia communis). It is not individual and not particular. It is not mediated through palingenesis [rebirth], but is a grace that is given to the whole human race and to the whole temporal cosmos that is religiously [ie “rootedly”] concentrated in this human race, without distinction between believers and unbelievers.

This common grace preserves human nature in spite of its apostasy from God. It also preserves individual gifts and talents; and it allows remnants of the original perfection to unfold, even in God’s fallen creation. Above all, it upholds the order of creation itself through the divine Word that created everything. Thus it maintains all the structures and ordinances that are founded in this creation order, which stand antithetically opposed to human hubris and force it to capitulate again and again.

There is no dualism between the divine Word that created all things and the incarnation of this Word in Christ Jesus, who brought redemption from sin. God’s Word remains the Word, even in its incarnation. 

According to Emil Brunner there is an internal contradiction between God’s will as Creator and God’s will as Redeemer. In this he is obviously under the influence of the dialectical ground-motive of nature and grace. Although common grace finds its origin in the Word of God, it can never be detached from Christ Jesus, the new life-giving root of the human race. Indeed, it is only in Christ that common grace truly becomes grace for mankind; and outside of Him it becomes judgment and curse. For this reason there can be no thought of a “separate domain of common grace” that stands opposed to a “domain of special grace” in Christ Jesus. 

The ground-motive of the Divine Word-revelation contains no dualism. It was only because of the influence of the scholastic ground-motive of nature and grace that Reformed Christians detached common grace from the incarnate Word and denied it in its religious root.

If the antithetical principle of life is eliminated from the fallen cosmos, nothing remains but the decay and death of human nature. This antithetical life principle has a preserving effect upon humanity as it stands yet undivided in its apostate natural existence; and it regenerates, through palingenesis, those creatures reborn and renewed in Christ Jesus. But the church of Christ, as such, can only live out of palingenesis, which works all its regenerating wonders even in the fellowship of a common grace shared with fallen mankind.

The life of this church in this fellowship of common grace entails antithesis, incessant struggle, and ongoing reformation. Indeed, it is only in terms of palingenesis [rebirth] that we can understand the reformational dynamic, a dynamic which through its radically changed life-posture transforms not only our worldview, but also, and at its core, our scientific endeavor.

Kuyper’s grasp of this shows that he truly lived out of the Scriptural religious ground-motive of the Reformation. This was the deepest insight in his entire “weltanschauliche” or “worldview-ish” conception of reformational scholarship.

(From REFORMATION AND SCHOLASTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY Volume 2, pp 7-9, by Herman Dooyeweerd. Originally published 1943-50. Translated by Magnus Verbrugge. Paideia Press, [Vol 5/2], 2013)

——————————————-

See also post -

Dooyeweerd: Common Grace

——————————————-

For this and many other free Dooyeweerd book downloads -

http://herman-dooyeweerd.blogspot.com

Herman Dooyeweerd: Scripture a coherent unified whole

‘Old Woman Reading’ (Rembrandt van Rijn, 1631)

[NOTE: “Religious” = “the innate impulse of the human selfhood to direct itself toward the true or toward a pretended absolute Origin of all temporal diversity of meaning” (Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought]. 

Herman Dooyeweerd:

Scripture a coherent unified whole

‘Scripture is a coherent and unified whole. It cannot be approached from a temporal historical or moral perspective, but only from its own religious ground-motive. In this ground-motive it manifests itself to the human heart as the truly divine revelation through the Holy Spirit; and it places itself in radical opposition to all religious conceptions that originate in the apostate heart of humankind.

[…] This ground-motive is the heart of Scripture. Primarily, it is not a theoretical, theological doctrine, but a divine dunamis [power] that transforms all theory at its root. And this dunamis operates in this manner only in palingenesis in the rebirth of the heart.

If anyone approaches Scripture from another religious ground-motive, not even the most extensive theological knowledge of Scripture will protect them from using Scripture in an unscriptural manner. For this simple reason, no intrinsically Reformed philosophy can ever take its starting point in the science of theology. Indeed, a genuinely Scriptural theology can only arise from the ground-motive of Scripture itself.

To remove palingenesis [rebirth - which embraces both the individual and all creation] as an active force from the foundations of the Reformed worldview and Reformed scholarship spells grave danger. It would cause the ground-motive of Scripture to degenerate into a theoretical “principle” for one’s life and thought — a principle which in essence stems from a rationalistic deification of reason, even though the thinker may not be aware of this. Even palingenesis itself would then be turned into something theoretical, that is to say, into a purely theological doctrine. It would, with theoretical detachment, be reduced to our logical function of thought, without having transformed our thinking at its root.

This degeneration can occur unnoticed even among those who place the greatest emphasis on the Scriptural character of their thought. For this reason, the reformational principle is a critical religious principle that becomes active in our thought not through theology, but through the Spirit (Pneuma) of the church of Christ by the Word of God itself.’

(From REFORMATION AND SCHOLASTICISM IN PHILOSOPHY Volume 2, page 7, by Herman Dooyeweerd. Originally published 1943-50. Translated by Magnus Verbrugge. Paideia Press, [Vol 5/2], 2013)

——————————————-

See also post -

DEEP CALLS TO DEEP

ADOLPH SAPHIR AND HERMAN DOOYEWEERD

(5) SCRIPTURE

——————————————-

For free Dooyeweerd book downloads -

http://herman-dooyeweerd.blogspot.com