If you read Dutch a description of the differences may be found in the last
lectures V. gave in his life, published in "Vollenhoven als Wijsgeer,
Inleidingen en teksten" by Drs.A.Tol and Dr.K.A.Bril (eds.) I explain the
differences as being caused by the fact that Dooyeweerd started off as a
lawyer, while Vollenhoven was a theologian, a preacher, who wrote his
theological doctoral thesis on the Foundations of Mathematics from a
Theistic point of view. (Also in Dutch, and probably only available in
University or College libraries.) As V.'s pupil in Jan. 1943, I felt these
differences long before he openly published them. They are related to the
fact that V. rejected D.'s idea of a supra-temporal soul. Consequently we
had to sit through an interesting three hour lecture on the biblical words
for soul, spirit and heart, no coffee break on a dark Monday morning,
starting at 8.00a.m.. (Note how that lecture impressed me, that I still
remember the circumstances). V. stressed very much the unity of man, but
let me not try to repeat a three hour lecture in two sentences. V. came to
the conclusion that God did create time, but does not "live" in time. Thus
God "sees" yesterday, tomorrow and today all at the same time. The
consequence is for us as human beings that when we die, we are
"immediately" resurrected at the end of times. V. did not publish about
death, but his pupil Telder did again in Dutch "Sterven en dan" and other
books and articles. I want to stress, that V. was a deeply believing man.
In every lecture came out his deep faith in God and his Saviour Jesus.
That impressed me most in V.. He had a deep knowledge of Scripture.
>
>There is here an implication that a "dualistic world view" is inferior and
that
>nothing happens outside God's will. Since I, for example, would probably not
>agree with such notions, there must be some deeper assumptions being made.
I would say it stronger: a"dualistic world view" is wrong. But there is
indeed a "freedom of choice" in man. The Bible makes every man responsible
for his sin, even his sin "in Adam." We must realize, that we cannot
fathom God and His actions. Just read the OT and the letter to the Romans
for example. Still, the Bible makes also clear that God uses the sins of
others to punish us. If we do not understand, that is because we are
creatures. Can the pot say to the potter: Why have you made me thus? So
Job received a sermon from the Lord at teh end of the book of Job, which we
should read again and again. Seen in that light the dichotomies you
mention dis appear.
>To say that the Bible clearly teaches that nothing happens outside God's will
>would seem to marginalise what a vast number of Christian folks think. I know
>there are those who equate God's will with his permission. But many cannot
>think that events like the holocaust, present-day massacres, or any
physical or
>moral evil is willed by God. They can't think of them because they are
>convinced that libertarian freedom derives from the very substance or essence
>of God. That the very necessity and spontaneity of the "machine" of science
>(and the splendour of natural phenomena) derives from what God gave at the
>"dawn of time". These same people think that removing libertarian freedom
>diminishes the sovereignty of God because they believe that freedom
ultimately
>comes from that image in which they are made. The more freedom a person has,
>the closer s/he is to God. Recall what St. Aquinas said about grace
perfecting
>nature rather than detracting from it.
>
>Again, you're right; the debate of Calvinism/Arminianism belongs to another
>channel. It's just that any real discussion in science seems to come down, in
>the end, to it. Why? Because there the very first premises are being made,
the
>nature of God.
Indeed.
Jan de Koning
Willowdale, Ont.