Abraham Kuyper’s appeal to John Owen’s concept of regeneration

Abstract

In his book The Work of the Holy Spirit, Kuyper begins (in the original Dutch version) with an extensive reference to John Owen. This raises the question of his relationship to Owen. Is his theology derived from John Owen? This study outlines Owen’s view of regeneration. We then consider how Kuyper developed his theology of regeneration. It appears that the metaphor of the ‘seed’ is central to his understanding of the new birth. The seed can retain its germinating capacity for years and only then sprout. When we compare this metaphor with Owen, it appears that Kuyper uses a concept that John Owen also uses, but he elaborates in a completely different way so that it ultimately becomes a different concept.

Over the course of 1888 and 1889, Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920) began his extensive treatise on the work of the Holy Spirit. ¹ Straightaway, in the fourth sentence of his preface, he refers positively to the Puritan John Owen (1616–1691) with the following words: ‘The work of John Owen on this subject is most widely known and still unsurpassed’. ² In the original Dutch version, he continues with fourteen pages about John Owen and his theological works. ³ Although Kuyper also refers to other studies on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, these fourteen Dutch pages about John Owen indicate a high estimation of him.

This raises the question of why Kuyper felt related to Owen. This question is deepened if we consider two other issues. In the first place, Kuyper understood himself primarily as a Calvinist. ⁴ In the original Dutch version of Kuyper’s work on the Holy Spirit, we find 25 positive references to Calvin and fourteen to Owen. ⁵ On the one hand, this indicates his unity with Calvin; on the other hand, it demonstrates that he would not have agreed with subsequent claims regarding the supposed opposition between Calvin and later Calvinists. ⁶ It also shows that the appeal of Owen for Kuyper goes beyond the fact that Owen wrote the first Protestant monograph on the Holy Spirit.

In the second place, the matter of Kuyper’s relationship to Owen is deepened by his critical attitude towards Methodism. In the preface of the English translation of his book on the work of the Holy Spirit, Kuyper adds a postscript for his American readers on Methodism to avoid misunderstandings among his American readers:

The Methodism that I contend with prevailed until recently in nearly all the Protestant churches as an unhealthy fruit of the Réveil in the beginning of this century…. From vindicating the subjective rights of the individual it soon passed into antagonism against the objective rights of the community. This resulted dogmatically in the controversy about the objective work of God, viz., in His decree and His election, and ecclesiastically in antagonism against the objective work of the office through the confession. ⁷ It gave supremacy to the subjective element in man’s free will and to the individual element in the deciding of unchurchly conflicts in the Church. And so it retained no other aim than the conversion of individual sinners ⁸ (…) But when the necessity arose to reduce this new spiritual life to a definite principle, upon this to construct a Protestant-Christian life and worldview in opposition to the unchristian philosophies and to the essentially pantheistic life and worldview, and to give this position and to maintain it, then it pitiably failed. It lacked conscious, sharply defined principles; with its individualism and subjectivity it could not reach the social questions, and by reason of its complete lack of organic unity it could not formulate an independent life and worldview; yea, it stood everywhere as an obstacle to such formations. For this reason it is absolutely necessary to teach the Protestant churches clearly to see this dark shadow of Methodism, while at the same time they should continue to study its precious significance as a spiritual reaction. ⁹

It is clear that Kuyper’s criticism cannot be applied to John Owen. It would be an obvious anachronism to understand John Owen as a Methodist, as he did not deny God’s decree or God’s election. But other analyses of Kuyper can in a certain sense be applied to John Owen. In John Owen’s works we find a relativisation of the public church because of the individualistic and subjective tendencies in his ecclesiology. ¹⁰

Although John Owen held sermons before the Parliament and was involved in the political movement of Oliver Cromwell, he offers little reflection on a Christian holistic organic worldview as a framework to deal with social issues, science, arts or the philosophies of his time. ¹¹ This point becomes even more acute when we see that Owen strongly relativises the creation in light of the eschaton (as seen, e.g., in his claim that ‘this whole old creation, shall be utterly dissolved and brought to nothing’). ¹² It seems that Owen is not interested in reflecting on the material world at all, because that does not ‘enrich the mind, nor better it all as to its eternal condition, nor contribute anything to the advantage of their souls’. ¹³ This approach is far removed from Kuyper’s and might well have been viewed by Kuyper as reflecting ‘Methodist’ sensibilities.

It is difficult to imagine that a theologian such as Kuyper was unaware of these significant fundamental differences between his and Owen’s thoughts. This makes the fact that he nevertheless refers so positively to Owen all the more intriguing. Looking into the table of contents of Owen’s pneumatology and Kuyper’s treatise on the Spirit reveals overlap. ¹⁴ There are also differences, but because regeneration is, for both Owen and Kuyper, the heart of their respective theologies, ¹⁵ I will focus on this concept. ¹⁶ This consideration leads to the main research question of this article: How should Kuyper’s appeal to Owen’s doctrine of regeneration be evaluated? To answer this question, I first examine the structure of Owen’s doctrine of regeneration. Next, I investigate the main principles of Kuyper’s doctrine of regeneration. Finally, I compare both concepts in order to reach a concluding evaluation.

Owen’s doctrine of regeneration

According to Owen, believers ‘have the principle of their growth in themselves…they grow from their own seminal virtue…. It hath a root, a seed, a principle of growth and increase, in the soul of him that is sanctified. All grace is immortal seed, and contains in it a living, growing principle’. ¹⁷ He understands this ‘immortal seed’ as:

the infusion of a new, real, spiritual principle into the soul and its faculties, of spiritual life, light, holiness, and righteousness, disposed unto and suited for the destruction or expulsion of a contrary, inbred, habitual principle of sin and enmity against God, enabling unto all acts of holy obedience, and so in order of nature antecedent unto them. ¹⁸

Besides words such as ‘principle’, ‘habit’ and ‘seminal virtue’, Owen uses terms such as ‘real internal efficiency’, ‘new nature’, ‘new disposition’, ‘power’ and ‘ability’, and speaks explicitly about ‘a physical immediate operation of the Spirit by his power and grace’. ¹⁹

Owen rejects the Thomistic understanding of the relationship between grace and justification, but he follows Thomas in his understanding of an infused habitus (or habit) that produces acts. This habitus is a disposition that shapes our actions. ²⁰ While in Aquinas’ theology a habitus can be lost, in Owen’s theology this concept is an argument for the perseverance of the saints. ²¹

How can this infused habitus be evaluated? First, it is Owen’s manner to do justice to biblical concepts such as the circumcision of the heart, the new heart, the new creation and the good tree. ²² The concepts specify his belief that grace is not only extra nos (outside us), but also effective in nobis (in us).

The Thomistic-Aristotelian conceptual instrument also offers, secondly, the possibility of explaining that God’s grace is not limited to separate acts. The spiritual habitus precedes the spiritual act; therefore, a spiritual act cannot be isolated from a spiritual habitus. The tree has to be good in order to produce good fruits. ²³

Thirdly, the renewal of the old nature also implies that Christians have a structural new nature. ²⁴ Owen refers to 2 Peter 1:4: ‘This “divine nature,” is not the nature of God, whereof in our own persons we are not subjectively partakers; and yet a nature it is which is a principle of operation, and that divine or spiritual,—namely, a habitual holy principle, wrought in us by God, and bearing his image.’ ²⁵

In this way, fourthly, he explains the character of the work of the Spirit. ²⁶ As opposed to the Socinians of his time, Owen emphasises that the work of the Spirit in us is not a moral reformation of the old nature but the infusion of a real new habitus or habit. ²⁷ There can be much moral reformation in a person’s life without the power of the Holy Spirit. Moral reformation is within the powers of the natural man, but regeneration is beyond our natural abilities. ²⁸ Owen uses this concept also in his conflict with Arminians, because they teach that human beings are in control of the final decision to accept or reject God’s grace. ²⁹ Therefore, he rejects Corvinus’ approach that ‘no infusion of any habit or spiritual vital principle is necessary to enable a man to believe’. ³⁰

Fifthly, to explain the difference between the moral work of the Spirit and the infusion of the new habit, Owen uses the concept of operatio physica (physical operation). This operation indicates that the work of the Spirit is more than an operatio moralis (moral operation) or operatio ethica (ethical operation). ³¹ Owen is sensitive to the possibility of misunderstanding in relation to his claim that grace has a physical character. ³² He explains that we cannot speak of an operatio simpliciter physica (simply physical operation). God’s grace does not deny our human capabilities but restores our ‘whole souls, their minds, wills, and affections’. ³³ Grace does not work mechanically in souls and lives; rather, believers are conscious of the work of the indwelling Spirit.

The preceding issue raises, sixthly, the matter of the character of the new nature: is the grace of the new nature primarily a relational or a substantial category? Are terms such as ‘habit’, ‘principle’, ‘nature’ and ‘infusion’ to be interpreted as metaphors of a relational reality in Christ, or do these terms refer to a substantial reality? Examining the relationship between the substantial and the relational dimensions in John Owen’s theology reveals that both are in play, but if we look more carefully into the relationship between these two dimensions, we can conclude that the substantial framework is interpretative of the relational. ³⁴ Being in Christ means mainly having a spiritual habit. ³⁵ The concept of the ‘new heart’ is the lens through which Owen looks at several concepts in the New Testament.

Another issue that is raised by the ‘immediate’ character of the infusion of gracious habits concerns the relationship between Word and Spirit in Owen’s theology. As a Reformed theologian, Owen acknowledges the absolute authority of Scripture. ³⁶ In his own context of engaging with ‘enthusiasm’ and the Quaker movement, Owen opposed the claim of inner light, for example, in his 1658 treatise Pro Sacrios Exercitationes adversus Fanaticos. ³⁷ There he can state, ‘He that would utterly separate the Spirit from the word had as good burn his Bible’. ³⁸

But if gracious habits are immediately infused, one might imagine that the Word of God is not necessary to receive gracious dispositions. According to Puritan understanding, ‘elected infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ’ without ‘being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word’. ³⁹ Both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration of Faith have a place for ‘other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word’. Commencing from this theological possibility of immediate regeneration could lead to speculations about the salvation of the heathen. But neither the Westminster Confession nor the Savoy Declaration allow that this possibility might be applied to the heathen. ⁴⁰ Owen concurs: ‘We absolutely deny that there is any saving mercy of God towards them revealed in the Scripture, which should give us the least intimation of their attaining everlasting happiness’. ⁴¹ The rejection of the immediate regeneration of the heathen is not inspired by the denial of the possibility of the Spirit’s work in an immediate way, but by the conviction that sinners need to know about Christ in the Word in order to be saved.

Owen uses several expressions to underline that the Word is the vehicle for faith and saving affections. Thus, he writes that the Word of God transforms corrupt affections into spiritual affections. ⁴² By hearing the Word, believers have ‘especial actings of faith and love towards the things themselves that are preached’. ⁴³ Therefore, Andrew Leslie concludes that ‘Owen considered the Word to be the “vehicular gratiae”, or the instrumental means by which grace is communicated to the soul’. ⁴⁴

These observations lead us to the question of how precisely we can profit from the saving work of Christ, which is revealed in Scripture. Reading through Owen’s Greater Catechism clarifies that we benefit from Christ’s work by God’s calling. ⁴⁵ By Word and Spirit, the elect are called ‘by the mighty, effectual working of his Spirit in the preaching of the Word’. ⁴⁶ The preaching of the Word is ‘the only outward ordinary means for the conversion of the souls of men’. ⁴⁷ The Holy Spirit uses the Word to operate on the minds and wills of men, but these effects ‘extend no farther but unto motives, arguments, reasons, and considerations, proposed unto the mind, so to influence the will and the affections. Hence his operation is herein moral, and metaphorical not real, proper, and physical’. ⁴⁸

In Owen’s understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer, there are two phases. In the preparatory phase, the intellect, mind, conscience, conversation and affections are touched, while in the second phase, the will of man is renewed. ⁴⁹ In the preparatory phase the Spirit uses the law to drive sinners to Christ. ⁵⁰ The Spirit reveals sin and its sinfulness. Sinners are brought ‘under bondage to sin, death, Satan and hell, so making us long and seek for a Saviour’. This preparatory work of the Spirit does not lead to the ‘delight, complacency and satisfaction’ in the spiritual excellencies of the gospel. ⁵¹ Unless the will is renewed, the human being is a lost sinner. In this voluntaristic understanding of the human soul, the renewal of the will is the pivotal point in regeneration and conversion. ⁵² Here, the sinner becomes a saint.

It is important to notice that this decisive work of the Spirit is immediate, without the Word, whether in the form of the law or the gospel. The Spirit works ‘internally, immediately, efficiently, in and upon the minds of men in their regeneration’. ⁵³ Rendered schematically, Owen’s position is as follows: Praedestinatio gratuita (gracious predestination), Meritum Christi (merits of Christ), Operatio Spiritus (work of the Spirit), Gratia efficax (efficacious grace), Infusio habituum (infusion of principle), Vocatio secundum immutabile dei propositum (calling according to the immutable purpose of God), Evangelium Jesu Christi (gospel of Jesus Christ), Liber vitae (book of life). ⁵⁴ This order prompts five observations to be made. In the first place, we see that the calling and the gospel are placed subsequent to the operation of the Spirit, efficacious grace and infused habits. Thus, the immediate work of the Spirit precedes the Word. Basing hope on the promises of the gospel is not the ground of faith but the fruit of faith. Not the gospel, but the Spirit is the source of faith.

This approach coheres, in the second place, with the fact that the promise of the gospel ultimately can only be addressed after the immediate work of the Spirit. ⁵⁵ Only after the immediate infusion of the new principle or the new will is the sinner receptive to the content of the gospel. Despite the universality of the promises, ultimately Christ ‘calls unto him only those who are weary and heavily laden’. ⁵⁶

In the third place, assuming that spiritual habits are infused implies that the new life is understood more as a work of the Spirit than as a fruit of God’s promise. ⁵⁷ At the same time, we have to say that even Owen is not consistent on this point. We see this inconsistency in his interpretation of the education of children. Initially, Owen accepted the view that children are adopted as God’s children by their baptism as ‘a holy ordinance, whereby, being sprinkled with water according to Christ’s institution, we are by his grace made children of God, and have the promises of the covenant sealed unto us’. ⁵⁸ In the 1650s, however, Owen’s interpretation of the meaning of infant baptism changed, and he denied baptismal regeneration wholeheartedly: while in the early church believers ‘were admitted to baptism, the symbol of regeneration…and so it was not an error to employ “reborn” and “baptized” as equivalent terms’, in his own situation Owen denies this relationship between (infant) baptism and regeneration. ⁵⁹ What did not change, however, was Owen’s view of the need to teach young children to pray to God as their Father and to ask for repentance and regeneration. This means that Owen – in a certain sense – accepted a relationship with God before regeneration. On the whole, we can say that Owen’s thought shifts its focus from the external calling to internal regeneration.

Fourthly, Owen’s interpretation of the relationship between Word and Spirit coheres with his ecclesiology: ‘Evangelical theology requires that the true Church consists of none but the regenerate’. ⁶⁰ Israel’s holiness in the Old Testament was ‘allegorical and typical’ for the ‘evangelical phase of the Church’. ⁶¹ And this shift from the promises of the gospel extra nos to the work of the Spirit in nobis reveals, in the fifth place, a characteristic of modernity in Owen. Although Owen considers himself to be a classic orthodox theologian in communion with the church of all ages, we see already the framework of modernity when he distinguishes ‘objective truth and subjective experience’. ⁶² René Descartes is an important expression of this modernity, as reflected in his ego cogito, ergo sum (‘I think, therefore I am’). ⁶³ By making the human subject central, any reality outside the human being – even Scripture – became a neutral object. ⁶⁴ As a result, Scripture is no longer interpreted as the viva vox Dei but as the objective truth that becomes spiritually relevant after the subjective enlightening of the Spirit.

To conclude, the Word and the Spirit in John Owen can be described as quite independent of each other: clearly distinct from each other without being separated. The Word and the Holy Spirit relate to each other as external and internal, objective and subjective dimensions of God’s saving work on the individual.

Kuyper’s doctrine of regeneration

Kuyper’s terminology about regeneration is comparable with John Owen’s thinking from the perspective of his use of categories like ‘principle’, ‘seed’, ‘habit’, etc.: ‘God comes to one born in iniquity and dead in trespasses and sins, and plants the principle of a new spiritual life in his soul’. ⁶⁵ Like Owen, Kuyper develops these concepts to underline the fundamentally gracious character of salvation. ⁶⁶ ‘Man is absolutely passive and unable’ in the immediate reception of this ‘seed’ of regeneration. ⁶⁷

Also in accordance with Owen is Kuyper’s distinction between a non-saving moral influence of the Holy Spirit on the soul and a (meta)physical work of the Spirit that really saves. ⁶⁸ Kuyper also underlines that regeneration does not mean that regenerated people acquire or become a different personality. ⁶⁹ Although human nature is changed in regeneration, the human essence remains the same.

Kuyper is aware that the theologians of the early Reformation understood regeneration in a wider sense, but he is ‘accustomed now to the limited sense’. ⁷⁰ The important difference between the older and newer concepts is that regeneration in the limited sense is unconscious, as opposed to a lifelong, conscious regeneration. ⁷¹ In Owen, we do not find this unconscious regeneration, and according to Kuyper, a focus on unconscious regeneration is the result of the development of Reformed doctrine. ⁷² The consequent reflection on this question implies a focus on the unconscious work of God that precedes every act of human consciousness. In this context, Kuyper distinguishes between the first and the second grace, that is, between fides potentialis (faith-faculty) and fides actualis (faith-exercise). ⁷³

These concepts lead the Neo-Calvinist to eight spiritual steps related to regneration. ⁷⁴ First is the implanting of the new life principle in the soul. In contrast to John Owen, Kuyper assumes that this implanting usually happens in early childhood before baptism, so that baptism is the seal of this implanting of new life. ⁷⁵ To understand the nature of regeneration, we can best study this mystery in little children, because they cannot make any contribution to their regeneration. ⁷⁶ So, unlike Owen, infant baptism is the lens through which Kuyper interprets regeneration. ⁷⁷

Secondly, there is the keeping of this life principle: ‘Persons who received the life-principle early in life are no more dead, but live. Dying before actual conversion, they are not lost, but saved (…) The new life is present, but dormant’. The concept of the seed-grain is fundamental for Kuyper. Referring to a seed-grain in the pyramids of Egypt that can be unfruitful for thousands of years explains that the principle of new life can be unconscious and sleeping for decades before it germinates. ⁷⁸

Thirdly, the call by the Word does not come to dead sinners but to regenerated members of the church. The Holy Spirit implants the potential to believe but also activates this potential. In this way, the preaching of the Word is effectual, and the slumbering regenerate will arise. This means that it is not the faculty of faith that is effectuated by the preaching of the Word, but only the exercise of faith. ⁷⁹

By God’s calling, fourthly, people are convinced of their sin and experience justification. As with Owen, Kuyper reasons from an objective-subjective scheme: subjectively, conviction of sin precedes faith and justification, but objectively, the acceptance of the lost condition was already an act of faith. A difference from Owen is that Kuyper distinguishes between unconscious regeneration on the one hand and conscious regeneration by faith later in time on the other. ⁸⁰

In the fifth phase of spiritual life, the ‘exercise of faith results in conversion; at this stage in the way of grace the child of God becomes clearly conscious of the implanted life’, such that the ‘implanting of the new life precedes the first act of faith, but conversion follows it’. ⁸¹ While the sinner is passive in the implanting of new life in regeneration, he is active in the daily conversion that follows.

The sixth phase is that conversion merges into sanctification. This divine process is not visible in young children before their twelfth or thirteenth year, but later it will appear in the lives of regenerate believers. Seventhly, sanctification is perfected in the complete redemption at the time of death, because dying to sin is perfected. This means that death is a great act of grace in which regeneration finds its fullest unfolding. Finally, Kuyper closes his overview of the links in this chain with resurrection on the last day, when regeneration finds its fulfilment in the glorification of the risen body.

This overview implies four sorts of people in the church: the regenerate elect without the exercise of conversion, the regenerated and converted members, the elect who are reborn later in their lives so that regeneration and conversion coincide, and finally, the non-elect. ⁸² The category of preparatory grace relates especially to the third category: in his providence, the Father uses everything that precedes their rebirth as a preparation for rebirth. ⁸³ Nevertheless, even in that case, regeneration is not the product of preparation, but an immediate work of the Holy Spirit.

The relation between Kuyper’s and Owen’s doctrines of regeneration

In light of the preceding analysis, it is possible to identify several similarities between the Puritan Owen and the Neo-Calvinist Kuyper. Both understood the Christian life from the perspective of regeneration in its limited sense, interpreted regeneration as an immediate work of the Holy Spirit and used concepts such as ‘seed’, ‘principle’ and ‘infusion’ to contrast Arminian views of God’s grace. Therefore, Owen and Kuyper used the ‘physical’ concept of grace to express their belief that human beings are not able to withstand the power of the Spirit and to clarify the difference between cultivated nature and supernatural grace. Both made in their own words a distinction between essence and nature, so that the essence of human personality remains intact, while the Holy Spirit works a new nature within this personality.

Owen and Kuyper also agree on the relationship between Word and Spirit. Both maintain that the immediate infusion of a new spiritual principle in the soul precedes the Word of God and its effect. Only if the work of the Spirit precedes the preaching of the Word can the Word be effectual in the regenerated soul. We can also say that in this respect, both theologians are ‘modern’ (in the Cartesian sense described above), in that they chose their starting point in the subject and developed their theology within the framework of the distinction between subject and object. And although I did not explore the issue of ecclesiology deeply, it appears that both Owen and Kuyper relate regeneration to the essence of the church; that is, both theologians develop their view of ecclesiology from the concept of regeneration – further evidence that for both, regeneration is the cornerstone of their theologies.

At the same time, there are also important differences between Owen and Kuyper. While Kuyper separates the implanting of the new spiritual principle chronologically from its germination, we do not see this separation in Owen’s theology. Owen distinguishes the passive implanting of the seed from the active involvement of the believer, but he does not separate these aspects in time. It seems that for Kuyper, the metaphor of the seed develops its own dynamics, but we do not find this in Owen. This distinction between passive reception of fides potentialis and active fides actualis coheres in Kuyper with the unconscious reception and the conscious exercise of faith. For Owen, the passive reception of regeneration is the inner side of the active conversion.

Because Owen and Kuyper differ in the relationship between regeneration and conversion, they differ also in the interpretation of the preparatory work prior to conversion. While Kuyper interprets this preparatory work as the providence of the Father, which includes the activity of the Holy Spirit, Owen understands this preparatory work as a work of the Spirit by the law in the human soul. In other words, John Owen understands regeneration and conversion from the perspective of the gospel, while Abraham Kuyper expects both the conviction of the law and the comfort of the gospel in the converted person.

The difference between these theological concepts implies also another contrast. Kuyper presumed an unconscious regeneration in children who are baptised, while Owen (at least in his later work) denies such a relationship between baptism and regeneration. Owen reasoned from the conscious regenerative work of the Spirit to baptism, while Abraham Kuyper reasoned in the opposite direction. He could not accept infant baptism without the presence of an unconscious inner grace that was sealed in baptism.

Evaluating Kuyper’s appeal to Owen’s doctrine of regeneration

We can conclude that Kuyper appealed to Owen for the concept of the ‘physical’ immediately infused grace, as reflected in Owen’s idea of principles or ‘seeds’ that were planted in the soul and germinated later. This conceptual framework seems to be the reason why the Neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper felt a bond with the Puritan John Owen.

Nevertheless, the two differ significantly in their application of this concept. While Owen understood the concept of the seed as reflecting a conscious spiritual experience, Kuyper used this concept to defend the unconscious regeneration of children and the chronological distinction between regeneration and conversion. In this way, the metaphor of the seed obtained its own dynamics in Kuyper’s theology.

Although the theological concept of the seed is fundamentally the same in Owen’s and Kuyper’s theologies, their differing applications of this concept have important consequences for the differences in the practice of church life, education and spirituality. On the whole, it can be concluded that Kuyper employed Owen’s concept of the immediate infused principle of grace, but he gave it his own unique interpretation and application. In that sense, the question remains whether they used the same concept or whether Kuyper could appeal rightly to John Owen for his concept at all.