Dr. Keller, as an ordained minister in the PCA, is much more aligned theologically with Old Princeton. His doctrine of Scripture would be more in-line with Old Princeton. His views on women and LGBTQ+ persons in ordained ministry would be affirmed by Old Princeton (and probably New Princeton until, obviously, more recent times). As such, he is not in alignment with today’s Princeton Theological Seminary on a number of issues. But what about Abraham Kuyper? 

In 1898 B.B. Warfield invited the Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper to deliver six lectures at Princeton Seminary for the inaugural Stone Lectures. These lectures were eventually bound and printed as Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism. In these lectures, Kuyper discussed what he believed to be the manner by which a Calvinist and Reformed worldview ought to be applied to quite a number of spheres of life. The inaugural Stone Lectures forever linked the theology of Dr. Kuyper with Princeton Seminary. This connection was further solidified in the creation of the Kuyper Prize, awarded by the Kuyper Center for Public Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. The Abraham Kuyper Prize for Excellence in Reformed Theology and Public Life “is awarded each year to a scholar or community leader whose outstanding contribution to their chosen sphere reflects the ideas and values characteristic of the Neo-Calvinist vision of religion engagement in matters of social, political and cultural significance in one or more of the ‘sphere’ of society.”1

The recent controversy surrounding the reversal of the decision to award the 2017 Kuyper Prize to Dr. Timothy Keller, while disappointing, is not surprising. The history of Princeton Seminary, as a microcosm of the mainline Presbyterian denomination, would seem to lead to no other conclusion than one where a man would be deemed unworthy of an award because he too closely holds to the views of the award’s namesake.

The reorganization of Princeton Seminary in 1929 put it on a course where the supposed form of Kuyper, Reformed Theology, and the even the Scriptures is upheld, but the actual material of them is rejected. Old Princeton (prior to 1929) was marked by an unrelenting commitment to the Westminster Standards, the Reformed Faith, and historic orthodox Christianity. With the appointment of Dr. J. Ross Stevenson in 1914 and the passing of Warfield in 1921, Old Princeton had effectively died. In its place was a Princeton that emerged out of the Barthian and liberal theologies of the early 20^th century.

The difference between Old and New Princeton could be summarized in two matters: the authority of the Bible, and the conception of history.2 Old Princeton insisted on the infallibility of the Scriptures. Charles Hodge wrote:

On this subject the common doctrine of the Church is, and ever has been, that inspiration was an influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds of certain select men, which rendered them the organs of God for the infallible communication of his mind and will. They were in such a sense the organs of God, that what they said God said.3

The Barthian school, however, promoted a neo-orthodox view of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are not infallible. Emil Brunner, Guest Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton (1938-39), wrote that the Word of God is in the Bible, but that it is accompanied with error and imperfections. Using a phonograph as an illustration, he argued that one can hear the voice of Master Caruso on the record. It is really and truly his voice. But also heard is the scratching of the needle on the disk. “So, too, is it with the Bible. It makes the real Master’s voice audible, – really his voice, his words, what he wants to say. But there are incidental noises accompanying, just because God speaks His Word through the voice of man“4 (emphasis mine). Brunner argues that God’s Word is in the Bible, but so is human error.

The difference in the conception of history also gave cause for divergence between Old and New Princeton. Old Princeton held to the historicity of the various events in the Scriptures, for example the virgin birth and the resurrection. In 1937-38 the Rev. L.R. Farmer was made Visiting Professor of Homiletics at Princeton. Farmer was a signer of the Auburn Affirmation. The Auburn Affirmation denied the necessity that ministers believe in the historicity of the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the miracles of Jesus. Those who signed the Affirmation did not necessarily deny these events, but rather they desired freedom and unity in the church. They were moving away from seeing biblical events as historical but rather as, using Barthian language, “supra-historical” (Geschichte). They actual historicity of these events was irrelevant to the faith.

Read More