The Internal Unity of the Amsterdam Viewpoint

Here, the major representative of Amsterdam to be considered is Abraham Kuyper. The reason is not only that Kuyper was the best known of these theologians, but also that there was not the unity among the Amsterdam theologians that there was at Old Princeton. Spencer explains:

There is not the nearly complete consensus or unanimity in content among the exponents of this position.  That is, the position is not as monolithic as is Old Princeton’s.  At least one explanation for this is that the exponents were not trained in the position.  All of them came to it as a result of their individual reflection, though there was a pattern of influence. Groen Van Prinsterer, Kuyper, and Bavinck all studied at Leyden, but were not exposed to a monolithic apologetic position there (if indeed an apologetic position existed at all in the heyday of nineteenth century liberalism).  Moreover, the Leyden education, in perspective and content, largely functioned only as a foil for these men’s positions, it being antithetical to orthodoxy.

Another reason for the diversity was the developing character of the position. The position did not exist in a final, complete form; it was being built and modified as they went along.  Not until Van Til’s work beginning in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s was the position elaborated at length. Even in his work, it was necessary to correct or modify certain aspects of Kuyper’s and Bavinck’s position.

Nonetheless, there is a central, common thrust which allows the work of these men to be grouped together.  This common tenet is the postulation of a division in humanity.  For Kuyper, it is between regeneracy and unregeneracy while for Bavinck, it is between belief and unbelief, but the split is essentially the same.^[1]

The Philosophic Influences upon the Amsterdam Viewpoint

There was a fundamental difference between Princeton and Amsterdam on this issue.  Princeton was influenced by a single philosophical viewpoint. The Amsterdam men were not.  What they had in common was only their Calvinism. Spencer argues:

The situation of the Amsterdam apologists is significantly different [than that of the Princeton apologists‑-SW].  There is no one single dominant philosophical tradition influencing these men.  The separateness of the men in their lives and experiences and in their development of the position accounts for this.  The major common factor between Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer, Abraham Kuyper, and Herman Bavinck is the University of Leyden, where they were educated.  However, the major influences there were theological, not philosophical.  The common factor in their development of their distinctive position, a development which occurred in each man independently, at least in the early stages, was fervent, devout, orthodox Calvinism.  In each case, however, the source of that factor was different.^[2]

Kuyper himself was influenced by a form of idealistic philosophy. Spencer notes:

Klapwijk begins by stating that Kuyper (and his predecessor Groen Van Prinsterer as well) were influenced by “nineteenth century romantic historical idealism”… particularly as “Christianized” by Frederic Julius Stahl …This school was committed to the gradual and essentially steady unfolding of the latent potentialities of history and civilization, giving a dominant air of ameliorism to the historical-cultural analysis.  Kuyper, in his politics, theology, and ecclesiology was often inclined to conceive of a pattern of increasing discovery and influence of truth.^[3]

There is evidence that Kuyper allowed the rationalistic tone of such idealistic philosophy improperly to influence him.  One result of this may have been his tendency to minimize or depreciate apologetics.  This minimizing of apologetics appears to have been a result of a rational deduction he drew from the noetic or mental depravity of the unregenerate.  He allowed this deduction, however, to blind him to the clear teaching of Scripture on the legitimacy of apologetics. Spencer argues:

Consistency is certainly a high virtue for Kuyper.  The problem is not with logic, deduction, system, organization, or consistency, but when they begin to militate against Biblical instruction and commands, which may not fit neatly into the organized, logically consistent system, they have overstepped their bounds.  This pattern can be noted in Kuyper’s discussion of the nature and role of apologetics.  Kuyper has little use for apologetics which squares poorly with the Scriptural pattern (1 Peter 3:15, Philippians 1:16, 1 Timothy 4:1-6; 6:20, 21, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, Titus 1:9-2:1).  The low view results from his deduction from the radical antithesis between the regenerate and the unregenerate.^[4]

Listen to Kuyper’s view of apologetics in his Lectures on Calvinism:

There is no doubt then that Christianity is imperilled by great and serious dangers.  Two life systems are wrestling with one another, in mortal combat.  Modernism is bound to build a world of its own from the data of the natural man, and to construct man himself from the data of nature; while, on the other hand, all those who reverently bend the knee to Christ and worship Him as the Son of the living God, and God himself, are bent upon saving the “Christian Heritage.”  This is the struggle in Europe, this is the struggle in America, and this also, is the struggle for principles in which my own country is engaged, and in which I myself have been spending all my energy for nearly forty years. In this struggle Apologetics have advanced us not one single step.  Apologists have invariably begun by abandoning the assailed breastwork, in order to entrench themselves cowardly in a ravelin [fortified trench‑-SW] behind it.

From the first, therefore, I have always said to myself,‑-“If the battle is to be fought with honor and with a hope of victory, then principle must be arrayed against principle; then it must be felt that in Modernism the vast energy of an all-embracing life-system assails us, then also it must be understood that we have to take our stand in a life-system of equally comprehensive and far-reaching power.  And this powerful life-system is not to be invented nor formulated by ourselves, but is to be taken and applied as it presents itself in history.  When thus taken, I found and confessed, and I still hold, that this manifestation of the Christian principle is given us in Calvinism.  In Calvinism my heart has found rest.  From Calvinism have I drawn the inspiration firmly and resolutely to take my stand in the thick of this great conflict of principles.  And therefore, when I was invited most honorably by your Faculty to give the Stone-Lectures here this year, I could not hesitate a moment as to my choice of subject.  Calvinism, as the only decisive, lawful, and consistent defence for Protestant nations against encroaching, and overwhelming Modernism,‑-this of itself was bound to my theme.^[5]

Unlike Princeton, Kuyper and Amsterdam tend to the Rationalism of Descartes and those following him rather than to British Empiricism.  Yet there are similarities between Warfield and Kuyper as the major representatives of Princeton and Amsterdam.  Both appealed to common sense.  Neither clearly built their apologetics on God.  Neither were careful enough in their adoption of philosophies coming from a non-Christian source. Spencer concludes with these remarks:

Though there are significant differences between the philosophical influences upon the orientation of Old Princeton and Amsterdam, there are also some striking similarities.  Kuyper and Bavinck as well as Old Princeton appeal to consciousness, “common sense,” and universal consent to justify their starting points in the perceiving and reasoning of man.  Neither clearly builds from Scripture and God in so doing, but instead they both start from human experience itself considered apart from God, His Word, and regeneration.  Both, thus, are less than explicitly Biblical and Christian in their philosophical orientation.  They have been less than selective in their indebtedness to philosophical influences.^[6]

The Noetic (Intellectual or Mental) Effects of the Fall in the Amsterdam Viewpoint

Kuyper’s major emphasis was on how the fall had affected the ability of unregenerate men to respond intellectually in a proper way to Christian truth.  Spencer writes:

Abraham Kuyper explicitly stressed the importance of the noetic effects of the fall:  “In every theory of knowledge which is not to deceive itself, the fact of sin must henceforth claim a more serious consideration” (Principles of Sacred Theology, pp. 106-107).^[7]

Kuyper endeavors to enumerate a great number of ways in which sin has influenced human reason.^[8]  One of the most graphic illustrations given by Kuyper of this adverse effect of sin upon human reason is this:

Greater or less acuteness of thought depends upon personal conditions which are entirely different.  Paul is a more acute thinker than James, and in acuteness of thought Aristotle and Kant excel by far the majority of Christians.  If I put a sharp knife in a mowing-machine, but place it too high, so that it cannot touch the grass, all action of the machine is vain; and with a duller knife, which touches the grass, I will produce ten times as much effect.  And such is the case here.  As long as the divine illumination remains wanting, the logical instrument is out of relation to divine things.  It does not touch them, and therefore its action is in vain.^[9]

Van Til, commenting on this remark of Kuyper’s, properly adds:

The result is, says Kuyper, even worse than this illustration would indicate.  For the action of sinful human thought is not merely fruitless; it is destructive of the truth.^[10]

One key result of this emphasis on the noetic effects of sin and the radical, intellectual difference between the regenerate and unregenerate parts of the human race is that Amsterdam depreciates and reduces the importance of the common sense and universal consent tests for truth, which were so important for common-sense realism and Old Princeton.  Kuyper clearly rejects the idea that the “general consent” of the human race can sit in judgment on special revelation.  He argues this in his Principles of Sacred Theology in a chapter entitled, “Is the Natural Principium able to summon the Special Principium before its Tribunal?” and also in chapters entitled “Two Kinds of People” and “Two Kinds of Science.”^[11]

Revelation in the Amsterdam Viewpoint

1. Natural Theology and Special Theology

Natural theology refers to the theology constructed by reason on the basis of natural revelation. Special theology refers to the knowledge of the Christian faith we gain from the Word of God, the Bible.

Like Warfield, Kuyper fails to distinguish with clearly defined terminology between natural revelation and natural theology. Also, natural theology has a positive, apologetic significance in Warfield. For Kuyper, natural theology has a negative significance. Spencer writes:

Abraham Kuyper asserts that, prior to the presence and effects of sin, man was able to gain a “pure or sufficient knowledge of God” from the created order (Principles of Sacred Theology, p. 361).  Kuyper describes the knowledge of God gained in this way by the term “natural theology.”  He laments the fact that in post-Reformation theology, natural theology soon came to be treated “as a separate theology alongside of revealed theology” (p. 372).  “The two were then placed mechanically side by side.  To natural theology we owed the knowledge of God’s being, of the Divine attributes, of His work, providence, moral law, the last judgment, etc., and although special theology made us know a great deal of sin and grace, in fact it enriched the real knowledge of God only with the knowledge of God only with the knowledge of His `Grace’ and of His `Threefold Being’ … With this division it became apparent, that the real Theology as knowledge of God gave the lion’s share to natural theology, and that the theology of grace, while it occupied itself with many and exalted mysteries, in reality abandoned the foundation of all knowledge of God, and therefore the heart of the matter, to its twin sister (pp. 372-373).”  Eventually, Kuyper notes, natural theology attempted to exclude special theology entirely (p. 373).  In order to prevent this chain of events:  “…it is, therefore, of the greatest importance, to see clearly, that special theology may not be considered a moment without natural theology, and that on the other hand natural theology of itself is unable to supply any pure knowledge of God (p. 373).”  Special revelation, in Kuyper’s judgment, is “not conceivable” without the hypothesis of natural theology (p. 373).  Special theology does not compete with natural theology; it presupposes it.  “Without the basis of natural theology, there is no special theology” (p. 374).  Referring to Calvin for support, Kuyper argues that God has given all men “some apprehension of his existence” in order that “the sense of the Divinity can never be lost.  It is upon the canvas of this natural knowledge of God itself that the special revelation is embroidered” (p. 374).  He quotes Calvin to the effect that “the Scripture, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notions of Deity, dispels the darkness, and gives us a clear view of the true God (p. 374).”….The interdependence is reciprocal because “the representation is equally absurd that the natural knowledge of God, without enrichment by the special, could ever effect a satisfying result” (p. 377).  The natural knowledge of God, without special revelation, led to “idolatry and brutalization” (p. 377).  “Hence it is only by the special knowledge that the natural knowledge becomes serviceable” (p. 378).  Without special revelation, “I advance no further than to the Unknown God” (p. 378).^[12]

Kuyper’s use of the phrase, natural theology, is problematic.  On the one hand, before the fall it provided man with a “pure or sufficient knowledge of God.”  After the fall, it leads only to “idolatry and brutalization.”  On the other hand, in spite of this it is on the canvas of natural theology that the special revelation is embroidered.  What is the problem?  Lacking in Kuyper is the clear and important distinction between natural revelation and natural theology.  Kuyper at various time uses natural theology to refer to natural or general revelation.  At other times, he uses natural theology in its proper sense.  Properly used, natural theology includes more than natural revelation.  It means fallen man’s response to natural revelation.  It means the use that he makes of it with his fallen intellect.  If, however, Kuyper uses natural theology at times as a synonym for natural revelation, he has another phrase that he uses consistently to include man’s interpretive response to natural revelation, the use he makes of it with his fallen intellect.  It is the phrase, natural principium.  Van Til is right when he asserts, “When he discusses the sinner and the fact that this sinner has usurped the authority of judging the work of redemption he speaks of the natural principle, principium naturale.  He then contrasts with it the special principle, the principle by which God has in Christ and through the Spirit come to save sinners.  These two principles, he argues, stand utterly opposed to one another.”^[13]

2. The Natural Principium and the Special Principium

Kuyper contrasts absolutely the operations of these two principles.  Yet at the same time he points out that they are essentially and intimately related.

If we might choose another metaphor to explain the relation between the two, entirely in the spirit of Calvin but more fully, the figure of the grafted tree pleases us most.  He who grafts, plants no new tree, but applies himself to one that exists.  The tree is alive, it draws its sap from the roots, but this vital sap is wild, in consequence of which the tree can bear no fruit that is desired.  And now the grafter comes, and inserts a nobler graft, and thereby brings it to pass that this vital sap of the wild tree is changed, so that the desired fruit now ripens on the branches.  This new graft does not stand by the side of the wild tree, but is in it;  and if the grafting is a success, it may equally well be said that the true graft lives by the old tree, as that the uncultivated tree is of use solely because of the new graft.  And such, indeed, is the case here.  The wild tree is the sinner, in whose nature works the natural principium of the knowledge of God as an inborn impelling power.  If you leave this natural principium to itself, you will never have anything else than wild wood, and the fruit of knowledge does not come.  But when the Lord our God introduces from without, and thus from another principium, a shoot of a true plant, even the principle of a pure knowledge into this wild tree, i. e. into this natural man, then there is not a man by the side of a man, no knowledge by the side of a knowledge, but the wild energy remains active in this human nature, i. e. incomplete knowledge; while the ingrafted new principium brings it to pass, that this impelling power is changed and produces the fruit of true knowledge.  The special knowledge is, indeed, a new and proper principium, but this principium joins itself to the vital powers of our nature with its natural principium; compels this principium to let its life-sap flow through another channel and in this way cultivates ripe fruit of knowledge from what otherwise would have produced only wood fit for the fire.^[14]

A number of consequences flow from Kuyper’s way of looking at this matter.  First, he does not distinguish between general (natural) and special (positive) revelation before the fall.  His dichotomy between the natural and special principium is simply a distinction between non-redemptive and redemptive revelation.

Before the fall God speaks with Adam, God causes a deep sleep to come upon Adam, and, by an encroaching act of God, Eve enters upon existence.  God has an entrance to our heart by nature, and not first by grace; He is able to rule the human spirit by His Spirit; and able to communicate to man what He will.  The communication of the test-commandment is an immediate communication of a conscious thought, which could not rise from Adam’s consciousness.  Actually, therefore, in special revelation no single means is used which was not already present by nature in or about man.^[15]

The making of special revelation an exclusively post-fall and redemptive phenomena is an inadequate view of revelation.  As we will see, positive or special revelation stood side by side with general or natural revelation before the fall.  Each form of revelation both before and after the fall complements and depends on the other.^[16]

A second consequence of Kuyper’s viewpoint is that the distinction between natural revelation and natural theology or the natural principium is obscured.  This leads Kuyper to conclude that the natural man has no knowledge of God available to him at all.  In no even qualified sense does the natural man know God.  This implication or consequence is confirmed first by Kuyper’s constant failure ever to qualify his statements that the natural man does not know God.  It is also confirmed by Kuyper’s remark on Romans 1:19 where he says,  “… there was first a condition in which the natural knowledge of God allowed ‘that which may be known of God’  (Rom. i. 19) to be manifest, but that this was followed by the period in which God gave the sinner up …”^[17]  This exegesis of Romans 1:19ff. leads to the conclusion that men now know God in no sense at all, when in fact Romans 1:19, 20 is teaching precisely the opposite.  This consequence of Kuyper’s view is also confirmed by his statement “that the normal entrance, which in creation God had unlocked for Himself to our heart, had become inaccessible by sin, and that for this reason, by an act of heroic grace, God has temporarily opened for Himself another entrance to our heart, to reveal Himself as the same God to the same creature, only now with the aid of a different principium of revelation.”^[18]  This view may be likened to what a doctor does when the normal air passages in the throat to the lungs are blocked.  The doctor will then cut a passageway in the neck so that air can flow to the lungs.  This is called a tracheotomy.  The special principium is a spiritual tracheotomy surgically opened by God.

A third consequence of Kuyper’s idea of the natural and special principium is that the natural man operating only with the natural principium may not be allowed to sit in judgment upon the special principium.  Says Kuyper:

If special revelation assumes that in consequence of sin the normal activity of the natural principium is disturbed, this implies of itself that the natural principium has lost its competency to judge.  He who considers it possessed of this competency declares thereby eo ipso [by that very statement‑-SW] that it is still normal, and thus removes all sufficient reason for a special revelation.  You must either deny it the right of judgment, or, if you grant it this right, the object disappears upon which judgment shall be passed.  The psychiater [psychiatrist‑-SW], who treats the maniac, cannot render his method of treatment dependent upon the judgment of his patient.^[19]

To attempt to furnish proof to the natural man working as he is out of his natural principium is, therefore, impossible.

In a word, there would always be defence ready against the proof that this special principium is real, and this proof is not possible of any principium.  Could this be furnished, it would eo ipso [for that very reason‑-SW] cease to be a principium.^[20]

Following on from this as a fourth consequence of this structure of Kuyper’s thought is the uselessness of apologetics. Says Kuyper:

He who is not born of water and the Spirit, cannot see the kingdom of God, and the human mind is sufficiently inventive so to modify its tactics, whenever you imagine that you have gained your point, that your proof is bound to lose its force … The same is true in part of the apologetic attempt to refute objections raised against the content of our Christian confession, and more particularly against the Holy Scripture as the principium of theology.  Polemics will never be able to attain satisfactory results on these points, simply because the spheres of conceptions and convictions, from which the argument proceeds on the two sides, are too widely apart …^[21]

Speaking of the proofs derived from Scripture for its divine character, Kuyper proceeds to argue …

One needs, therefore, but examine the series of these proofs for a moment, and it is at once perceived how utterly devoid of force they are over against him who merely accepts the natural principium.  The miracles and fulfillment of prophecy, indeed, have been pointed to, as if these had some power of proof for him who denies the very possibility of miracle and emasculates all concretely fulfilled prophecy as being “prophecy after the event”…^[22]

Van Til confirms this last point:

There is one main conclusion that Kuyper has drawn from this his general position, and that is because of it there is virtually no use in Christian apologetics.  Not that Kuyper has himself always been true to his virtual rejection of apologetics.  But he frequently argues that since the natural man is not to be regarded as the proper judge of the special principle and since this is true because his understanding is darkened, there is no use and no justification for reasoning with the natural man at all.  The question is whether this conclusion can be harmonized with the fact that Christianity is the true religion and has the criterion of truth within itself … Men have not done justice by the facts, by the evidence of God’s presence before their eyes, unless they burst out into praise of him who has made all things … Shall we then simply say that since the natural man is blind there is no purpose in displaying before him the rich color scheme of the revelation of God’s grace?  Shall we say that we must witness to men only and not reason with them at all?  How would witnessing to them be of any more use to them than would reasoning?  If men cannot in the least understand what he who witnesses is speaking of, will the witnessing be any challenge to him at all?^[23]

The Theistic Proofs in the Amsterdam Viewpoint

Kuyper’s position regarding the theistic proofs has already been suggested. His doctrine of the natural and special principium precludes his attaching any validity to the theistic proofs.

Bavinck, another theologian of the Amsterdam school, differs from Kuyper on this point.  His point of view should be mentioned. He discusses favorably six proofs for the existence of God according to Spencer. Among those six proofs are the cosmological, the teleological, the moral, the anthropological, and the historical arguments.^[24]  Though he is favorable to these proofs, Bavinck draws back from ascribing to them a compelling character.^[25]

Spencer’s summary of both Amsterdam and Old Princeton with regard to the theistic proofs is as follows:

All of these men‑-Alexander, Hodge, Bavinck, and Van Til‑-make use of “theistic proofs,” but their conception of the nature and value of them differs significantly.  Van Til diverges by formulating them in a distinctively Christian form.  The others formulated them on a basis common to both Christian and non-Christian.  Bavinck also reduces their value from that of valid proof to that of non-binding testimonies.^[26]

Concluding Summary

The differences between Kuyper and Warfield are glaring. For Kuyper the fundamental point is that the reasons of men are depraved. Classical apologetics is, therefore, pointless. For Warfield, on the other hand, the fundamental truth is that Christianity is rationally defensible. Therefore, classical apologetics is valid and important. Human depravity cannot affect the basic ability of men to appreciate the arguments for Christianity.

Again, my purpose right now is not to solve these problems.  It is rather to raise the questions which we must take to our answer key the Bible. Is apologetics a valid thing? Is Christianity rationally defensible? If adapting Christianity to non-Christian thought undermines its content, then how can we talk to or defend the faith to the unconverted? Is there a kind of apologetics which does not do this?  If there is, then what about the problem of human depravity?  Does total depravity influence the ability of men to appreciate the arguments for Christianity? Are the differences between the regenerate and the unregenerate so glaring and drastic that there is no point of contact or common ground?

Usually I do not as a matter of principle raise questions which I do not immediately answer. My purpose right now, however, is to get you thinking about the questions which we will attempt to answer from the Bible in the rest of this study of apologetics.

^[1]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 12-13.

^[2]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 26.

^[3]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 28.

^[4]ibid.

^[5]Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., n. d.) 8

^[6]ibid.

^[7]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 47.

^[8]ibid.

^[9]Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, (Baker: Grand Rapids, reprinted 1980), 288.

^[10]Cornelius Van Til, The Christian Theory of Knowledge (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 232.

^[11]Kuyper, Principles, 150-175, 380-389.

^[12]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 57-58.

^[13]Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge, 230.

^[14]Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 375-376.

^[15]Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 379.

^[16]In the General Introduction to Part 3 of the Course, Theological Considerations, this point will be elucidated and supported.

^[17]ibid., 377, 378.

^[18]ibid., 380.

^[19]Kuyper, Principles, 381.

^[20]Kuyper, Principles, 384.

^[21]Kuyper, Principles, 385-386.

^[22]Kuyper, Principles, 387.

^[23]Van Til, Christian Theory of Knowledge, 234-235.

^[24]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 67, 68.

^[25]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 68, 69.  He argues:  “… the moment we make contact with actual phenomena in nature, and even more in history, our argumentations and conclusions as a general rule are subject to all kinds of misgivings and objections … The fool can, all testimony to the contrary, still say in his heart, There is no God (Ps. 14:1), and the heathen although they knew God, did not glorify God and were not thankful (Rom. 1:21) (p. 41).”

^[26]Spencer, Princeton and Amsterdam, 71.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.