Kuyper Could Have Been Writing Today

I just finished reading Kuyper’s masterpiece, Principles of Sacred Theology. Of all the theological encyclopedias that I own, this one is by far the best, for Kuyper recognizes the fact that theology is truly an organism, not a compartmentalized series of specializations. Kuyper also recognized the importance of doing theology in the context of the church and in service to the church. Look at some of these quotations, which desperately need to be heeded today.

Without this sense of service (to the church and to the Holy Spirit, LK) all study becomes subjectivistic, unhistorical, and arrogant, while, on the contrary, the placing of oneself at the service of the truth, i.e. in this instance of the Holy Ghost, banishes all pride, curbs the desire to be interesting by exhibiting new discoveries, feeds the desire of theological fellowship, and thereby sharpens that historic sense which impels the theologian to join himself to that great work of the Holy Spirit effected in past ages, which at most he may help advance a few paces (p. 586).

No man is a theologian in a scientific sense unless he is also a partaker of personal enlightenment (Kuyper means regeneration here, LK) and spiritual experience. For, unless this is the case, his starting-point is wanting, and he has no contact with the principium of theology (Kuyper means Scripture as principium, LK). Neither can the theologian stand outside the church relation, and thus outside of personal union with the churchly confession, for then he finds himself outside the historic process (p. 590).

The theologian should not undervalue the confession of his Church, as if in it a mere opinion presented itself to him over against which, with equal if not with better right, he might place his opinion (emphasis original, p. 591).

A company charged with the public water-works may change the direction of some part of a river-bed by cutting off some needless bend or obstructive turn, but this does not render the company the original creator of the river who causes its waters to flow. In the same way, the scientific theologian may exert a corrective power here and there upon the confessional life of the Church, but this does not constitute him the man who sets this life in motion (p. 591).

It is not lawful, therefore, for him simply to slight this confessional life of the Church in order, while drifting on his own oars, to construct in his own way a new system of knowledge of God. He who undertakes to do this is bound in the end to see his labor stricken with unfruitfulness, or he destroys the churchly life, whose welfare his study ought to further (p. 592).

To be able, however, to accomplish this task, scientific theology must be entirely free in her movement. This, of course, does not imply license. Every study is bound by the nature of its object, and subjected to the laws that govern the activity of our consciousness. But this is so far from a limitation of its liberty, that its very liberty consists in being bound to these laws. The railway train is free, so long as the rails hold its wheels in their embrace. But it becomes unfree, works itself in the ground, and cannot go on as soon as the wheels jump the track (pp. 593-594).

Here is a parting question for my readers: how many theologians do you know that need to heed Kuyper’s words? I can think of dozens without even half trying.



  1. Steven Carr said,

    March 13, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Ah…the famous Kuyper quote about train derailment. Always a good thing for theologians to here. There can be much pride in those who have put much time and study into theological disciplines, that they forget who they are and where they came from.

  2. Andrew Myers said,

    March 14, 2009 at 6:04 am

    Excellent post, Lane, thanks for sharing that!

  3. GLW Johnson said,

    March 15, 2009 at 7:51 am

    We could start with the likes of Peter Enns.

  4. Mark Traphagen said,

    March 15, 2009 at 11:10 am


    Fried? Roasted? Just slightly singed?

    Just feeding your fantasy life…

  5. GLW Johnson said,

    March 15, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Enns’s legacy among his students is rather sad. How many of them,like you, are on the warpath against the Old Princeton/Westminster doctrine of inerrancy?

  6. greenbaggins said,

    March 15, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Mark, rhetoric aside, I do think that Enns jumped the tracks on the doctrine of Scripture and Christology. Shouldn’t Gaffin, Poythress, and Oliphint with their incredibly well-done papers have some weight? Shouldn’t it bring you up short. If people of that caliber wrote such papers about my work, I would be absolutely petrified and stopped in my tracks.

  7. Joshua W.D. Smith said,

    March 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    How do the third and fourth blocks of quote work together? How does a theologian exert a correcting influence on the confession if the confession always outways one person’s opinion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: