This article is about Abraham Kuyper as an advocate of a Christian worldview, and what he believed constitutes a Christian worldview. The author discusses Kuyper's theology of God's sovereignty and grace.

Source: The Outlook, 1998. 12 pages.

Abraham Kuyper: Advocate of a Christian Worldview

In my previous article, I began to introduce some of the key fea­tures or themes of Abraham Kuyper's understanding of a Calvinis­tic worldview. In that article I noted that Kuyper used the language of "worldview" or "life-system" to de­scribe a comprehensive perspective upon the world, consisting of a uni­fied "system of conceptions" that addresses all the different areas of life. In his Lectures on Calvinism therefore, Kuyper set forth the implications of a Calvinistic worldview for such wide-ranging subjects as religion, politics, science, art and the future. After con­sidering what Kuyper meant by a worldview, I then began to summarize the key principles of Kuyper's position by describing several features of his doctrine of the church. According to Kuyper, a free church, one whose ministry of the gospel of the kingdom equips the people of God for their vari­ous vocations, was vital to the refor­mation of life under the lordship of Jesus Christ.

There are three further principles or themes in Kuyper's understanding of a Christian worldview that remain to be considered. These are the principle of sphere sovereignty, the antithesis be­tween faith and unbelief, and the doc­trine of common grace. Each of these principles played an important and farreaching role in Kuyper's thinking and practice. Each of them, moreover, has been the subject of considerable debate and criticism. In what follows, I will only attempt to describe accurately Kuyper's viewpoint, reserving to a subsequent article a consideration of some of the common criticisms of Kuyper's position.

Sphere sovereignty🔗

On the occasion of the founding of the Free University in Amsterdam in 1880, Kuyper delivered his well-known address, "Souvereiniteit in Eigen Kring" (literally, "sovereignty in its own circle").1 That Kuyper should have chosen to address this subject on this important occasion confirms the importance of this prin­ciple to his thought. It is also one of the principles for which Kuyper, where there is some familiarity with his writings, is commonly known.

God's universal sovereignty🔗

The issue of sphere sovereignty was initially confronted by Kuyper within the context of his struggles for a free church, for a university "free" from state ownership and administration, and for a politics that was based upon the principle of God's sovereignty rather than popu­lar or state sovereignty. In each of these areas, Kuyper sought to articulate a vision of God's universal sovereignty over all the different spheres of life within the created order.

Kuyper faced the issue of sovereignty and authority in sev­eral different areas. In the context of the church struggle in the Nether­lands, Kuyper had to confront the illegitimate assertion of state authority over the internal affairs of the churches on the one hand, and of de­nominational authority over the lo­cal churches on the other hand. In the context of the school struggle, Kuyper faced off against those who advocated state ownership and ad­ministration of the schools, includ­ing the universities. And in the con­text of the political struggle, Kuyper opposed the tendency to grant inappropriate authority to the people or the magistrate. In each of these struggles, Kuyper insisted that the Calvinistic conviction of God's sov­ereignty over all of His creation was being compromised.

These respective struggles consti­tute the historical background and context for Kuyper's insistence in his Lectures on Calvinism that the Calvin­istic emphasis upon God's sover­eignty has implications, not only for the doctrine of salvation, but for other areas of life as well.

This dominating principle (of Calvinism) was not, soteriologi­cally, justification by faith, but, in the widest sense cosmologi­cally, the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos, in all its spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible. A primordial Sover­eignty which eradicates (sic) in mankind in a threefold deduced supremacy, viz.,
1. The Sover­eignty in the State;
2. The Sover­eignty in Society; and
3. The Sov­ereignty in the Church2

God's sovereignty, as this statement of Kuyper suggests, means that He is the divine Author and Administra­tor of all the distinct spheres of the cosmos or world. God alone is the supreme King over all creation and, therefore, all earthly authorities are subject to His rule. No earthly au­thority is original. It is always author­ity that originates with and is sub­ject to God's supreme authority. Thus, any attempt by an earthly au­thority to rule over the distinct spheres of God's creation usurps God's sovereignty. It also threatens human life with a tyrannical abuse of authority.

The principle of sphere sovereignty🔗

In Kuyper's development of this fun­damental principle of God's sover­eignty over the entire world, he in­sisted that each sphere of life, because it is the creation of God, be subject to His direct rule. This is true particularly for those spheres of life — the family, the state, and the church — that are the direct institution of God. These spheres were instituted to provide for the ordering of human life under the sovereignty of God. The family is the first and original sphere created by God for the purpose of human bless­edness, procreation and nurture. The state and the church are post-fall spheres ordained by God for the purposes, re­spectively, of the just order­ing of human society and the redemption of God's peculiar people. All the other spheres of life, though not directly insti­tuted by God either at the dawn of human history or subsequent to man's fall into sin, are likewise under the sovereign ownership and authority of God the Creator. Though they are often the products of cultural and historical de­velopments, they are nonetheless le­gitimate spheres of life, which are sub­ject to the ordinances of God for their proper function.

Early on in his address on the sub­ject of sphere sovereignty, Kuyper raised the question to which this principle provided, in his opinion, the only appropriate answer.

What is Sovereignty? Do you not agree when I define it as the au­thority that has the right, the duty, and the power to break and avenge all resistance to its will? Does not your indestructible folk-conscience tell you too that the original, absolute sover­eignty cannot reside in any crea­ture but must coincide with God's majesty? If you believe in Him as Deviser and Creator, as Founder and Director of all things, your soul must also pro­claim the Triune God as the only absolute Sovereign. Provided - and this I would emphasize - we acknowledge at the same time that this supreme Sovereign once and still delegates his authority to human beings, so that on earth one never directly en­counters God Himself in visible things but always sees his sov­ereign authority exercised in hu­man office. Whence arises the very important question: how does this delegation proceed? Is the all-encompassing sover­eignty of God delegated undi­vided to a single person? Or does an earthly sovereign possess the power to compel obedience only in a limited sphere, a sphere bordered by other spheres in which another is sovereign and not he?3

According to Kuyper's understanding of the principle of sphere sov­ereignty, God delegates or entrusts to the vari­ous spheres a limited au­thority to carry out the task or responsibility entrusted to them. All creaturely or human au­thority is directly subject to God's authority, and not to the authority of other spheres of life.4

To illustrate this principle, Kuyper stressed the importance of a free uni­versity, that is, a university subject neither to state nor to church author­ity. Though the university has certain obligations to the state and to the church, the peculiar task given to the university under God is not one that either the state or the church should presume to undertake. Similarly, the family and its human authorities (parents) are not subject to the ille­gitimate intrusion of state authority, so far as their peculiar task and call­ing are concerned. The same prin­ciple applies to all the distinct spheres of life — whether the school, the political party, a business enter­prise, labor union, art, science, and the like. 5 Each of these spheres is responsible under God to fulfill its divinely given mandate. However, no earthly authority may assume the right to lord it over all other authori­ties or spheres of life.

Antirevolutionary politics🔗

Kuyper's development of this prin­ciple of sphere sovereignty was most evident in his articulation of the pro­gram of the Antirevolu­tionary Party. Over against the revolutionary principle of popular sover­eignty — that the state is subject to the authority and will of the people who call it into existence and determine what is right — Kuyper insisted that the state's authority is delegated to it by God and is limited to its pe­culiar area of responsibil­ity. The assertion of the unlimited authority of the people in the area of politics could only lead, Kuyper persistently argued, to a kind of unrestrained and tyrannical form of popular sovereignty. Carried to its logical conclusion, the principle of popular sovereignty could only en­courage a practice of "rule by the majority." Whatever the majority wished to legislate (the "will of the people") for the citizens of the state would become the law of the land. Might, in this case, makes right! This kind of unrestricted exercise of the power of the people could only lead to the excesses that characterized the Revolution of 1789 in France.

According to Kuyper, the alterna­tive to popular sovereignty repre­sented by the ideal of state sovereignty was no better. In this ideal, the state is regarded as the supreme and original authority, having direct authority over all the other spheres of human life. The church, the fam­ily, the school, the business enter­prise — all of these respective spheres of human life before God would be subordinated to the all-encompassing authority of the state and its magistrates. This would grant to the state a kind of unlicensed free­dom to interfere immediately in the affairs of the various sectors of soci­ety. And it would also regard the state as the primary means to bring about human blessedness and well being. Rather than the people being the supreme sovereign, as in the theory of popular sovereignty, the state would exercise its power in an almost messianic way, providing redemption for all who look to it for help and salvation.

In Kuyper's defense of the program of the Anti­revolutionary Party, the only antidote to these unchristian views of popular or state sover­eignty was the principle of divine sovereignty and its corollary, sphere sov­ereignty. As a servant ap­pointed by God, the state's authority is lim­ited by the ordinances of God. Rather than con­ceding to the state the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the various spheres of life, Kuyper in­sisted that the state's peculiar task was to promote the free develop­ment of human life within the vari­ous life-spheres. As an institution established by God after the fall into sin, the state was responsible to maintain good order, justice and peace on the one hand, and to re­strain injustice and the violation of good order on the other hand.

Kuyper's understanding of the principle of sphere sovereignty in the political arena can also be illus­trated in terms of the school struggle in the Netherlands. The antirevolu­tionary program insisted upon the free development and establish­ment of the schools in the Nether­lands. Rather than advocating a state monopoly upon public educa­tion, Kuyper vigorously defended the position that the state should encourage and accommodate the es­tablishment of schools throughout the Netherlands by associations united by common conviction and confession. Jus­tice in the area of education de­manded that the state encourage, for example, the formation of Chris­tian schools by associations of Christian believers or parents. The state should not determine the cur­riculum or worldview that shapes the instruction of the schools; this was the prerogative of those who established schools in accordance with their convictions or principles.

The antithesis🔗

Consistent with this emphasis upon the free development of the various life spheres under the sovereignty of God, Kuyper also insisted upon the freedom of Christian be­lievers to express and implement their unique worldview in every area of life.6 In the articulation and implementation of its distinctive worldview, Calvinism, as the most consistent expression of the Chris­tian faith, stands diametrically op­posed to the unbelief and anti-Chris­tian principles characteristic of al­ternative worldviews. The consistent application of the worldview of Cal­vinism required, according to Kuyper, a deliberately antithetical posture toward any position that was contrary to its unique stand­point and understanding of God's or­dinances.

The idea of the antithesis🔗

One of the primary principles, ac­cordingly, for which Kuyper is known is that of the antithesis between faith and unbelief, an antithesis that runs through every area of life. Not only is there a sharp difference between the "true" and the "false" church, there is also a sharp difference between antirevolutionary and revo­lutionary politics, between Christian education carried out on the basis of biblical principles and secular education, between a Christian and a Marxist view of the marketplace, between a Christian and a non-Christian labor union, and so on. When Christian believers seek to live obediently under the lordship of Jesus Christ, they will find themselves opposed, at every point, to the principles of unbelief and rebel­lion against the kingship of Jesus Christ.

For Kuyper, the antithesis between faith and unbelief is an inescapable feature of human life after the fall into sin. Due to the fall into sin, all human beings are by nature op­posed to and in rebellion against the true God. This opposition and rebel­lion are born from a heart-felt enmity against God that has pervasively cor­rupted all aspects of human life. Left to themselves, all men by nature are opposed to God's sovereign claim upon them and seek to suppress His truth in unrighteousness. Only through the regenerating and renew­ing work of God's grace in Christ and by the Spirit is the human heart able to be subdued again to obedience and brought captive to Christ. Be­tween the heart and life of the unregenerate and the regenerate, therefore, there is a great gulf fixed. This antithesis shows it­self in all the dimensions of human life and calling.

Anyone acquainted with Kuyper's life and ef­forts will be well aware of his insistence upon this radical antithesis be­tween faith and unbelief. Perhaps no other feature of Kuyper's position provoked more hostility and denun­ciation than his insistence that Christian believers act all the way down the line in accord with the distinctive prin­ciples of God's Word. Kuyper was insis­tent that the Calvinist believers in the Netherlands had to establish schools based upon their own prin­ciples and convictions. He likewise insisted that Calvinism gave rise to a distinctive political platform and program. The same was true for such areas of life as business and eco­nomics. One of the distinctive fruits of Kuyper's emphasis upon the an­tithesis was the proliferation of Cal­vinistic associations and efforts based upon the distinctive prin­ciples of the Calvinist worldview. Among these associations and ef­forts were: the formation of the Anti­revolutionary Party; the establishment of Calvinistic school associa­tions; the founding of the Free Uni­versity; the development of Calvinistic business and economic asso­ciations; the erection of Christian institutions of mercy and care, and the like.7.

Pro Rege ("For the King")🔗

This emphasis upon the antithesis was, for Kuyper, a necessary implication of the life-embracing claims of the lordship of Jesus Christ. If God as Creator enjoys the right of ownership and dominion over His creation-kingdom, then the creature owes Him obedience from the heart in all areas of life. The office of every creature is to do all things to the glory of God by living in obedience to His ordinances. Though the fall into sin has radically corrupted the human heart and set all men by nature on a course of rebellion against God, the office and calling of man as God's image-bearer remains the same. Through the redeeming work of Christ, the people of God are being restored to a right relationship with God and to the office/calling for which they were first created.

Thus, in Kuyper's development of the doctrine of the antithesis, one of his most characteristic emphases was upon the Christian's calling to serve Christ as King in every area of life. In a lengthy series of articles that first appeared in the periodical, De Heraut, and later published in a three-volume work, Pro Rege,8Kuyper gave expanded expression to this emphasis. The calling of the Christian believer, nurtured and directed by the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, extends into every aspect of human life. The claim of Christ upon the believer is, according to Kuyper, a totalitarian or life-embracing one. Just as every square inch of the created order belongs to God, so every square inch of it is under the reclaiming power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is King, not only of the church, but also of every legitimate human calling and institution. The principle that "whether we eat or whether we drink, we are to do it to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31), holds true for every facet of creaturely life. Whether it is farming, business, fam­ily life, art, culture, science and rec­reation — all of these stand under the authority of God, Creator and Re­deemer of all of life.

The twofold development of science🔗

Among the implications of this emphasis upon the antithesis and the lordship of Christ over all of life, none was more significant than Kuyper's insistence upon the twofold development of science, either in the ser­vice of the true God or in rebellion against Him. Just as the antithesis between faith and unbelief cuts through other areas of life, in the realm of science or human knowl­edge this antithesis is particularly evident.9 The lordship of Christ is as decisive to our scientific labors as it is in any other enterprise.

Defining science broadly to in­clude not only the natural sciences but also what in English-speaking circles are called the "humanities," Kuyper argued that Calvinism was naturally interested in all legitimate study and understanding of the cre­ation. Because Calvinism stressed the doctrine of God as Creator, and because it understood the legiti­macy of every human activity carried out in fulfillment of the cultural mandate to exercise "dominion" over the creation (Genesis 2:26-27), science was a legitimate and indispens­able human calling. The scientific study and knowledge of all created things was, according to Kuyper, a worthy pursuit, an important expres­sion of the Christian's service to God as Creator and Redeemer. Science fell under the same obligation to do all to the glory of God as with any other legitimate calling. As a legiti­mate life-sphere in its own right, Kuyper believed that the academy or the university ought to be free to pursue its particular calling without the inappropriate intrusion of state or church authorities.

Furthermore, Kuyper maintained that the antithesis between faith and unbelief could not be ignored in the field of science. Here, as in all other areas of life, the distinctive principles of Calvinism gave rise to a form of science or scholarship that was radically opposed to that science, which is shaped by non-Christian or antichristian prin­ciples. Just as in politics or in business, so in the area of science and edu­cation there is no escap­ing the clash of worldviews or the radical impli­cations of the Christian faith. Though there may be some areas of com­monness between sci­ence within a Christian and non-Christian con­text, the antithesis be­tween regenerate and unregenerate humanity expresses itself in a two­fold human consciousness.10 The radical difference of heart-commit­ment between the regenerate and unregenerate inevitably produces, Kuyper maintained, two kinds of sci­ence.

Kuyper's claim that there is an an­tithesis between faith and unbelief in the field of science constitutes one of the most influential and enduring as­pects of his legacy. When Kuyper first began to insist upon a twofold devel­opment of science, he was strongly opposed by the main­stream viewpoint of "posi­tivist" science that claimed to be neutral and objective. Kuyper's insis­tence upon two kinds of science was, in his day, a radical departure from the consensus that science was to be pursued without the influence of pre-scien­tific or religious convic­tions of any kind. Today, Kuyper's viewpoint has become far more com­mon. The school of apologetics, for example, associated with the name of Cornelius Van Til and commonly known as presuppositionalism  is an outworking of Kuyper's reforming insights regarding science and its development from a consistently Christian standpoint.11

Common grace🔗

In Kuyper's vision of a Cal­vinistic worldview, as we have seen, there was no place for the kind of Christian piety that withdraws from active involvement in the affairs of this world. Since God is the Creator of all things and the supreme Sovereign in every sphere, Christian believers are called to serve Him and to live in obedience to His ordinances in every area of life. Whether it be in the church, the school, the state, the family, the business-place, the labor union, the creation of art and cul­ture — all of these areas are to be made captive to the obedience of Christ. All we do must be done un­der the lordship of Christ - "for the King."

Within this rather posi­tive and expansive vision of the Christian's calling in the world, however, Kuyper also included a sober and biblically real­istic view of the antith­esis between faith and unbelief. Though Chris­tian believers are called to serve their King in the world, they were not to do so as those who are of the world. Too intimate or close an association with those motivated by principles antithetical to the Chris­tian faith would blur the lines of the an­tithesis and lead to fatal compromise with the world. For Kuyper, the Christian's involvement in the world on behalf of the cause of Christ could not be permitted to become the occasion for accommodating unbiblical principles or practices. This involvement had always to be marked by a prin­cipled and antithetical stance over against unbelief. Following the well-known dictum of his mentor, Groen Van Prinsterer, Kuyper practiced the conviction that "in our isolation lies our strength" (in ons isolement is onze kracht).

These twin emphases in Kuyper's thought — the call to worldly engage­ment in the service of the Lord, and the insistence that this engagement not blur the lines of the antithesis — posed a problem that he sought to answer by way of the doctrine of common grace, a doctrine he inher­ited from John Calvin but which he developed more fully.

That problem could be posed in the form of the question: How can Christians be engaged with the world in such diverse vocations as science, art, politics, edu­cation, and the like, when the corruption and rebel­lion of the non-regener­ate human heart is as radical and total as the Bible teaches? Or, to put the question a little dif­ferently: How can the Christian believer "rub shoulders" with the world and be directly engaged in a variety of callings, when sin has so thoroughly and pervasively corrupted the hearts and lives of those who are in rebellion against Christ? Should not the prin­ciple of the antithesis give rise to such a radical separation between the Christian and non-Christian that the only appropriate policy is to dis­engage from worldly activity alto­gether? In Kuyper's language, how­ever, the latter policy would be a kind of pietistic withdrawal from life in this world, or an "Anabaptist" policy of world-flight.

Defining common grace🔗

As with so many other key features of his worldview, Kuyper set forth his doctrine of common grace in a lengthy series of articles, first pub­lished in De Heraut from 1895-1901. These articles were then compiled and published in a three-volume study, De Gemeene Gratie ("Common Grace").12 Written during the height of his political activity within the Antirevolutionary Party — Kuyper was elected Prime Minister in 1901 — these articles provide a broad and comprehensive treatment of the doctrine of common grace, one which by Kuyper's own admission went beyond the earlier treatment of it within the Reformed tradition.

Early on in his development of the doctrine of common grace, Kuyper defines common grace, in distinc­tion from "particular" or "saving" grace, as a manifestation of God's power and goodness in restraining the effects of man's fall into sin and the development of the principle of op­position to God's lordship.

This manifestation of grace con­sisted in restraining, blocking, or redirecting the consequences that would otherwise have re­sulted from sin. It intercepts the natural outworking of the poison of sin and either diverts and al­ters it or opposes and destroys it. For that reason we must distinguish two dimensions in this manifestation of grace:

  1. A sav­ing grace, which in the end abol­ishes sin and completely undoes its consequences; and
  2. a tem­poral restraining grace, which holds back and blocks the effect of sin. The former, that is saving grace, is in the nature of the case special and restricted to God's elect. The second, common grace, is extended to the whole of our human life.13

Common grace does not destroy al­together the power of sin in human life, but it does hinder its progress and development. Though it does not completely undo the conse­quences of sin, as does particular grace, it does prevent the power of sin from ruining any possibility of life or blessedness within the cre­ated order.

According to Kuyper, common grace expresses the truth that Christ is the Mediator of creation and re­demption. The redemption which is ours by grace through Christ does not bypass or occur without regard to the creation itself. Christ is not the Savior of the soul apart from the body; He is the Savior of body and soul, the Creator and Redeemer of the entire created order.

To put it in a nutshell, shall we imagine that all we need is a Reconciler of our soul or continue to confess that the Christ of God is the Savior of both soul and body and is the Recreator not only of things in the invis­ible world but also of things that are visible and before our eyes? Does Christ have significance only for the spiritual realm or also for the natural and visible domain? Does the fact that he has over­come the world (John 16:33b) mean that he will one day toss the world back into nothingness in order to keep alive only the souls of the elect, or does it mean that the world too will be his conquest, the trophy of his glory?14

The preservation and maintenance of the created order, the prevention of the power of sin in human life from coming to unrestricted expres­sion — these dimensions of the op­eration of common grace reflect the truth that Christ does not redeem His people in order to release them from their appropriate callings within the different spheres of cre­ation. Redemption occurs within the context of a creation preserved from the effects of unrestrained sin. Re­demption, furthermore, occurs in order that the redeemed creature might be restored to a place of fit­ting service to the God of creation.

In this connection, Kuyper fre­quently trumpeted his disapproval of what he termed an "Anabaptist" policy of world-denial or world-flight.

People fall into one-sidedness in the opposite direction if, reflect­ing on the Christ, they think ex­clusively of the blood shed in atonement and refuse to take account of the significance of Christ for the body, for the vis­ible world, and for the outcome of world history. Consider carefully: by taking this tack you run the danger of isolating Christ for your soul, and you view life in and for the world as something that exists alongside your Christian religion, not controlled by it. Then the word "Christian" seems appropriate to you only when it concerns cer­tain matters of faith or things di­rectly connected with the faith — your church, your school, mis­sions and the like — but all the remaining spheres of life fall for you outside the Christ. In the world you conduct yourself as others do; that is less holy, almost un­holy, territory which must some­how take care of itself. You only have to take a small step more before landing in the Anabaptist position which concentrated all sanctity in the human soul and dug a deep chasm between the inward-looking spirituality and life all around.15

Such a policy of world-denial was, for Kuyper, incompatible with the confession of Christ's kingship and claim upon all of life.

But if it is true that Christ our Savior has to do not only with our soul but also with our body, that all things in the world be­long to Christ and are claimed by him, that one day he will triumph over every enemy in that world, and that in the end Christ will not gather a few separated souls around him, as is the case now, but will rule as king on a new earth under a new heaven — then, of course, everything is different. 16

Common grace, then, serves to preserve the creation and the human race from falling into utter ruin and sinful rebellion. By preserving His creation and hindering the develop­ment of sinful opposition to His dominion, Christ as Mediator of creation prepares the way for His redeeming work as Mediator of re­demption. This work of redemption, further­more, gives new impe­tus to the creation's purpose in bringing glory to the Creator. Because Christ as Me­diator of the creation preserves and main­tains the created order, those whom Christ as Mediator of redemption saves are encouraged to enter the precincts of creation without fear that they are entering "enemy territory" or embarking upon a labor that is in vain.

The relation between common and particular grace🔗

One of the more difficult aspects of Kuyper's development of the doc­trine of common grace concerns the relation between common and par­ticular grace. In his consideration of this relation, Kuyper alternated be­tween an emphasis upon their inde­pendence on the one hand, and upon their close interrelation on the other.

There were two ways especially in which Kuyper affirmed the indepen­dence of common and particular grace. In the first place, he opposed the understanding of common grace that limited its purpose merely to pro­viding an occasion for God's purpose of re­demption to proceed. Though Kuyper readily acknowledged that common grace — because of its restraint upon sin and provision for the continued existence and development of the creation and the human race was a kind of necessary precondition for the working of God's particular grace, he rejected the idea that this was its sole purpose. Of course, without the working and manifestation of com­mon grace, there would be no pos­sibility for the continued develop­ment and unfolding of the creation's richness and diversity. There would also be no possibility for the con­tinued existence of the fallen human race, deserving as it was of the curse of destruction and absolute separa­tion from fellowship with God. In these respects, particular grace works within the setting of a world whose continued existence depends upon God's common grace. How­ever, such an understanding of com­mon grace was in Kuyper's view in­adequate. It is an understanding that suggests that all things exist solely for the sake of the church, when in fact all things exist to bring glory and praise to God and are therefore ac­complished for the sake of Christ.

In the second place, Kuyper insisted upon a positive purpose for com­mon grace that was not directly linked to God's purpose of redemp­tion. Common grace had the posi­tive purpose or end of enabling the human race to fulfil its calling in exercising do­minion over the creation and bringing the creation to more full development, thereby bringing praise and glory to the Triune Cre­ator. According to Kuyper, all of God's works, whether in creation or redemption, serve the great goal of bringing praise to and magnifying the glory of God. To suggest that the redemp­tion of the elect is the sole or ulti­mate purpose of God is too man-centered and limited a perspective upon God's purposes. Everything, including the creation's develop­ment under the provisions of God's common grace, serves to glorify God. In a remarkably frank expression of this dimension of the aim of common grace, Kuyper was even pre­pared to speak of common grace working "independently" of particu­lar grace:

At the same time "common grace" will thereby achieve a pur­pose of its own. It will not only serve to bring about the emer­gence of the human race, to bring to birth the full number of the elect, and to arm us increas­ingly and more effectively against human suffering, but also independently to bring about in all its dimensions and in defiance of Satanic opposi­tion and human sin the full emergence of what God had in mind when he planted those nuclei of higher development in our race.... The fundamental creation ordinance given before the fall, that humans would achieve dominion over all of nature thanks to "common grace," is still realized after the fall. Only in this way, in the light of the Word of God, can the history of our race, the long unfolding of the centuries as well as the high significance of the world's devel­opment, make substantial sense to us.17

Lest this independence of com­mon and particular grace be misun­derstood, Kuyper also maintained that there is a close and intimate connection between them. The independence of common and particular grace is a rela­tive one, since they both have their origin in the work of the one Media­tor, Jesus Christ, and fulfil the purposes of the Triune God.

To express the interrelation be­tween common and particular grace, Kuyper recognized the legitimacy of teaching that the provisions of com­mon grace are, within the purpose of God, subservient to the working of particular grace in the redemption of the elect. This kind of view is cer­tainly true, according to Kuyper, so long as "it is understood that spe­cial grace is by no means exhausted in the salvation of the elect but has its ultimate end in the Son's glorifi­cation of the Father's love, and so in the aggrandizement of the perfec­tions of our God."18 So long as it is maintained that all of the works of God serve to bring glory to God, Kuyper allowed that the prevention and hindrance of sin through the working of common grace provided the kind of protection and provision for the church's ministry of the gos­pel that is so necessary. No absolute separation between common and particular grace is permitted. Com­mon grace provides an opening and platform for the redemption of God's people.

Next to this emphasis upon common grace as providing an opening for particular grace, Kuyper also emphasized the importance of particular grace to the engagement of the believing community within the world where God's common grace is also present and working.

Therefore, common grace must have a formative impact on spe­cial grace and vice versa. All separation of the two must be vigorously opposed. Temporal and eternal life, our life in the world and our life in church, re­ligion and civil life, church and state, and so much more must go hand in hand. They may not be separated.19

Not only does common grace make it possible for the Christian to be engaged in a variety of callings and tasks — by virtue of its preservation and provision for the development and unfolding of the created order — but special grace also serves to equip the Christian for a distinctive and renewing engagement with the created order. Just as special grace recreates and renews the believer in the way of obedience and service to God, so it equips the believer for a sanctifying and leavening labor within the various spheres of life.

Something of the complexity of Kuyper's conception of the relation between common and particular grace is evident from the following passage in which Kuyper distin­guishes "four terrains":

We must be careful to distin­guish four terrains.

  • First, the ter­rain of common grace that has not yet undergone any influence of special grace.
  • Second, the terrain of the institutional church that as such arises totally and exclusively from special grace.
  • Third, the terrain of common grace that is illumined by the light emitted by the lamp of special grace.
  • Fourth, the terrain of special grace that has utilized the data of common grace20

For our purpose, the third of these terrains is most important. By this terrain, Kuyper has in mind the way in which Christian believers can ex­ercise a leavening and reforming in­fluence when they engage in a wide range of vocations. Believers do not need to flee the world and its vari­ous callings. These are preserved and sanctified by Christ   Himself who is the Me­diator of creation and re­demption. Nor should believers engage in these vocations without the en­lightenment and wisdom pro­vided through the working of God's special grace. Precisely because of the working of God's special grace, be­lievers have a particular calling and distinctive task to be like leaven and salt in the earth.

Thus, for Kuyper the doctrine of common grace, especially in terms of its relation to special grace, served a kind of double function. On the one hand, it explained how believers could approach the world without viewing it as unrelievedly wicked and sinful. Because God faithfully main­tains His creation and preserves it against the unrestrained develop­ment of sin, believers can view the creation, not as the domain of the evil one, but as a proper place of Christian labor and service. Further­more, because God's special grace aims to restore the fallen sinner to renewed obedience and service, the believer has the duty to bring every area of life into self-conscious ser­vice of Christ as King. The doctrine of common grace, then, served to ward off two parallel errors: the er­ror of

world-flight on the one hand, and the error of world-conformity on the other. In relation to special grace, it provided Kuyper with an answer to the question, how can the child of God be actively engaged in worldly vocations without becoming conformed to the world?

Common grace and science🔗

In order to complete this summary of Kuyper's doctrine of common grace, I would like to include a com­ment or two on Kuyper's discussion of the relation between common grace and science. One of Kuyper's dis­tinctive emphases was that of the antithesis. There is a sharp line of distinction to be drawn between faith and unbelief, an antithesis that cuts through every area of life and every legitimate human endeavor. For this reason, Kuyper was insistent that Chris­tians were obligated to serve Christ as King all along the line, in every area of life, and always in sharp distinction from those whose service was not performed in obedi­ence to Christ. In the par­ticular area that now concerns us, the area of science and scholarship, Kuyper similarly main­tained that there is a twofold development of science. In the area of science, as in every area of life, there is no room for a pos­ture of neutrality or indifference with respect to the claims of Christ. One either seeks to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, or one pursues the work of science in a manner that does not give Christ His due.

In his treatment of common grace and science, Kuyper sought to bal­ance this emphasis upon the antith­esis in science with a genuine ap­preciation for science as a fruit and consequence of the working of common grace. Defining science in general as the knowledge of the created order, in which man as God's image-bearer seeks to reflect in his thinking the truth of creation in all its richness and diversity, Kuyper insisted that the cultural mandate continues to include the work of science. All of humanity remains under the obliga­tion to explore and to understand the creation, an obligation that not only remains after the fall into sin but is able to be carried out due to the working of God's common grace. In the fulfillment of this obligation and mandate, sinful and even non-regenerate people are enabled, both by God's preservation of the creation and restraint upon the sinful rebel­lion of the human heart, to discover and know much that is true and com­mendable.

Thus, just as Kuyper emphasized the connection between the doctrine of common grace and a biblical em­phasis upon the goodness of cre­ation, so in the field of science Kuyper emphasized the connection between common grace and humankind's continued duty and capacity for interpreting the working of creation.

Without common grace the de­scent of science outside the en­lightenment of the spirit would have become absolute. Left to itself, sin goes from bad to worse. It makes you slide down a slope on which no one can re­main standing. Those who do not reckon with common grace must conclude, therefore, that all science outside holy pre­cincts is fraud and self-decep­tion and will mislead anyone who listens to its voice. But the evidence shows this is not true. The Greeks, completely deprived of the light of Scripture, developed a science that surprises us still by the true and beautiful substance it has to offer. The names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle have constantly been honored by Christian thinkers. We do not exaggerate in saying that Aristotle's thinking was a most powerful means of bring­ing Christians to deeper reflec­tion. And no one can deny that these days a rich science is blooming in the fields of as­tronomy, botany, zoology and physics. Although conducted almost exclusively by people who are strangers to the fear of the Lord, this science has produced a treasure of knowledge that we as Christians admire and grate­fully use. 21

Kuyper's emphasis upon the fruit of common grace in the area of sci­ence and its progress might appear, at first glance, as contrary to his emphasis upon the antithesis and the corresponding twofold develop­ment of science. However, two ob­servations are necessary to a full understanding and appreciation of Kuyper's position.

  • First, Kuyper did not believe that the sinful rebellion of the human heart ever came to absolute expres­sion in any area, including the area of science. Not only does God main­tain the integrity of His creation, but He also provides for real progress and understanding of the creation through the scientific la­bors of His image-bear­ers. Not to recognize or appreciate the real contributions and advances of science, in some cases among non-Christians whose scientific labors surpass anything wit­nessed within the Chris­tian community, would represent a failure to rec­ognize the work of God in the course of history, in­cluding the history of sci­ence.
  • Second, Kuyper also wanted to encourage Christian believers to pursue the cultural mandate in the area of sci­ence, as in all other legitimate hu­man callings. Rather than fleeing the field of science, Christian believers ought to be at the forefront in pur­suing rigorous and careful scholarship. Having been freed in principle from the sinful tendency to suppress the truth and pursue the study of cre­ation from principles antithetical to the Christian faith, Christian believ­ers must pursue science as a proper service to the God of creation.

In these respects, Kuyper's presen­tation of the doctrine of common grace in relation to science paral­leled his presentation of the doc­trine in other areas. By means of the doctrine of common grace, Kuyper argued, we are able to affirm the pro­priety of Christian service in the vari­ous spheres of life. Because God's common grace restrains the devel­opment of sin in human life and pre­serves the integrity of the created order, Christian believers need not flee engagement with the world but may pursue every legitimate calling in the service of Christ as King of all creation.

Conclusion🔗

With this consideration of Kuyper's doctrine of common grace, we come to an end of our summary of Kuyper's understanding of the worldview of Calvinism. In a subse­quent article, I hope to consider some of the questions and criticisms that have often been raised regard­ing Kuyper's position. I will resist the temptation here, how­ever, to begin to offer an evaluation of his posi­tion.

What should be appar­ent from our treatment of Kuyper's worldview is that there was a close fit between Kuyper's life and his convictions re­garding the Christian's calling in the world. That Kuyper found himself variously engaged in such activities as preach­ing the gospel, seeking the reformation of the church, articulating a political party's platform, running for politi­cal office and serving as prime-min­ister, editing a daily newspaper, founding a Christian university — should not surprise us. These vari­ous engagements were as much the fruit of his worldview as they were the expression of his many gifts and talents.

Kuyper's life confirmed in many ways his convictions about the church, the principle of sphere-sovereignty, the antithesis and the doc­trine of common grace. Kuyper viewed the reformation of the church, not as an end in itself, but as the means to call into existence and equip for service the people of God. Because the church ministers the gospel of the kingdom, it calls the people of God to acknowledge Christ as King in every area of life. The Christ of the gospel is the Mediator of creation and redemption, the Sov­ereign King whose crown rights in every area of life were to be honored and served. Therefore, no area of life falls outside the embrace of Christ's kingship; no legitimate area of hu­man calling and service is exempt from being enlisted in the service of God. And, though the antithesis be­tween faith and unbelief cuts through all aspects of life, requiring distinctively Christian efforts in the various life-spheres, this antithesis could not be the occasion for any pattern of fleeing our calling within the world. Because of the working of God's common grace, it remains possible to affirm the goodness of creation and the validity of cultural and scientific labor to the praise and glory of God.

Endnotes🔗

  1. ^ The English rendering of Kuyper's language, "sphere sovereignty," tends to suggest that Kuyper viewed these spheres as isolated from and unrelated to each other. Kuyper's lan­guage emphasizes more the unique task and appropriate authority delegated by God to each sphere of life. 
  2. ^ Lectures on Calvinism, p. 79.
  3. ^ "Sphere Sovereignty," p. 466.
  4. ^ This concern to prevent any human authority from assuming undue power over the other spheres of life is clearly evident in the fol­lowing statement from Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism (p. 91): "In this independent charac­ter a special higher authority is of necessity in­volved and this highest authority we inten­tionally call — sovereignty in the individual social spheres, in order that it may be sharply and de­cidedly expressed that these different devel­opments of social life have nothing above them­selves but God, and that the State cannot in­trude here, and has nothing to command in their domain. As you feel at once, this is the deeply interesting question of our civil liber­ties."
  5. ^ One of the striking features of Kuyper's doc­trine of sphere sovereignty is the imprecision with which he delineated these various life-spheres. Rather than providing a careful and exhaustive list of the primary life-spheres, Kuyper tends to mention a number of differ­ent institutions and areas of life to illustrate their diversity and to oppose any illegitimate "blurring of the boundaries" between them. 
  6. ^ There is some ambiguity at this point in Kuyper's address, "Sphere Sovereignty." Though this language is used to articulate the diversity of life spheres as created and or­dered by God, Kuyper also uses it to cover the rather different idea that there are a diversity of worldviews or principles that require expression in the antithetical development of human life. Thus, for example, if Calvinist principles demand the establishment of a "free" and Calvinistic university, then Catho­lic principles demand the establishment of a Catholic university. Kuyper expresses this point toward the conclusion of his address, "Sphere Sovereignty" (pp. 484-485): "...consid­ering that something begins from principle and that a distinct entity (e.g. a university) takes rise from a distinct principle, we shall maintain a distinct sovereignty for our own principle and for that of our opponents across the whole sphere of thought. That is to say, as from their principle and by a method ap­propriate to it they erect a house of knowl­edge that glitters but does not entice us, so we too from our principle and by its corre­sponding method will let our own trunk shoot up whose branches, leaves and blossoms are nourished with its own sap." 
  7. ^ Those who are acquainted with many of the Reformed communities in North America that have been influenced by Kuyper's views will recognize similar developments. The empha­sis upon the antithesis and the need for sepa­rate Christian organizations (schools, politi­cal parties, business associations, labor unions, agricultural associations, rest homes, schools for those with handicaps and other distinctive organizations) is, in part, an evi­dence of Kuyper's influence. For example, among many of the post-WWII Dutch immi­grants to Canada and the United States, a strong Kuyperian emphasis upon the need for distinctively Christian organizations was present
  8. ^ Volumes I-III. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1911. Unfor­tunately, though these volumes contain some of the most striking expressions of Kuyper's views, they have not been translated into English.
  9. ^ In addition to his chapter on "Calvinism and Science" in his Lectures on Calvinism, Kuyper set forth his understanding of the twofold devel­opment of science in a comprehensive way in his three-volume work, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid (Amsterdam: J.A. Wormser, 1894). A portion of this work has been translated into English with the title, Principles of Sacred Theology (with intro. by B. B. Warfield; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968 (18981). 
  10. ^ Though Kuyper is sometimes misunderstood to have taught that the twofold development of science means that the non-regenerate know absolutely nothing about the created order that is true, his actual position acknowl­edged that the non-regenerate know many truths, especially those at the "lower" level of the (empirical) sciences. Kuyper accounted for this in at least two ways: first, it is practi­cally impossible to think in a consistently anti-Christian manner, since the truth is ultimately inescapable and irrepressible; and second, God by His common grace (more on this in the next section of this article) enables the non-regenerate to have some limited knowledge of the truth, despite his rebellion against God.
  11. ^ See Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1955), pp. 160ff., for an example of Van Til's appreciation for Kuyper.
  12. ^ See Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1955), pp. 160ff., for an example of Van Til's appreciation for Kuyper. 
  13. ^ "Common Grace," p. 168. It is important to note that Kuyper deliberately chose the term gratie rather than genade ("grace") when speak­ing of the subject of common grace. Though the English translation of these two terms is the same, Kuyper wanted to keep clearly be­fore his readers the distinction between a general favor or grace that God manifests to­ward all His creatures and that special grace (particular and electing) that He shows to His people alone.
  14. ^ "Common Grace," p. 171.
  15. ^  "Common Grace," p. 172.
  16. ^ "Common Grace," p. 173.
  17. ^ "Common Grace," p. 179.
  18. ^ "Common Grace," p. 170-171. 
  19. ^ "Common Grace," p. 185-186.
  20. ^ "Common Grace," p. 199.
  21. ^ "Common Grace," p. 199.

Add new comment

(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.
(If you're a human, don't change the following field)
Your first name.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.