Kuyper

Kuyper’s central epistemological insight (K1) involves the recognition of the antithesis between belief and unbelief. While ideally there is but one science that human consciousness adds to throughout the centuries, the fact of the matter is that the introduction of sin into the world through the fall produces an “abnormal” condition.¹

There are those scientists who view the world through the lens of normality assuming that the way things are is the way they have always been. Then there are scientists who have experienced palingenesis (regeneration) that helps them realize that the world which they explore has been ruptured by sin and is in the process of being redeemed. The antithesis between belief and unbelief leads to the development of two sciences, although Kuyper recognizes that ideally there is only one science.²

Kuyper speaks in terms of two principles, the natural and the special principle.³

The natural principle is the principle of unbelief, of human autonomy and normalcy. It not only leaves God and his revelation out of the picture, it adamantly opposes Christian approaches to the scientific endeavor. One could say that there are then at least two aspects to the natural principle: a truncated view of reality and a hateful disposition toward God and his revelation.⁴

In opposition to the natural principle stands the special principle. The special principle is, as far as I can tell, another way of talking about the principium of theology, although the emphasis here falls on only one aspect of these. Christian theology is understood (and Kuyper spends a fair bit of time explicating this himself) to rest upon or derive from two principia: the principium essendi (principle of being) which is God himself and the principium cognoscenti (principle of knowing) that is further subdivided into the principium cognoscendi internum (internal principle) which is faith (wrought in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit) and the principium congnoscendi externum (external principle) which is Holy Scripture.

As I understand Kuyper, his emphasis in his discussion of the antithesis falls upon the effect of faith on the mind of the believer engaged in the task of science.⁵ The unbeliever does not possess this faith or special principle and so there is an opposition between belief and unbelief in the realm of science. In addition, the special principle is, according to Kuyper, accidental. That is, it reflects God’s response to the introduction of sin and abnormality into his otherwise good creation.⁶

End Notes
1. Kuyper, Principles, 220. See also his discussion in his Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1931), 132-136.

2. Kuyper, Principles, 92, 152, 156. On the unity of truth, 155.

3. Kuyper, Principles, 368-389. Also noted in Van Til, Defense, 260-261.

4. Kuyper, Principles, 380-389. I should note that Warfield seems to stress the first and neglect the second aspect.

5. Kuyper does discuss a formal type of faith defined as trust in one’s senses as one does science that is true for the believer and unbeliever. I will have more to say about this in a forthcoming segment. I do not believe that Kuyper is talking about formal faith here in his discussion of the special principle. See his Principles, 341-348,especially 347-348.

6. Perhaps this is Kuyper’s way of pointing out that the special principle is an eschatological intrusion into the fallen world. See his Principles, 344-348. Van Til will comment upon the accidental nature of the special principle, especially as it is contrasted with the “gradational principle” exemplified in Thomas Aquinas’ approach to natural revelation, Defense, 262-263.