This paper seeks to support the thesis that prayer is one essential element to understanding Martin Luther (1483-1546) both as a reformer and a theologian. After establishing this thesis, Luther’s basic theology of prayer will be discussed, along with the trinitarian aspect of his prayer; then, at the end a brief sketch of his prayer life will be given.
I. Prayer: A Key to Understanding Luther
Many remember Luther as the great Reformer,[1] but few recognize him as the great man of prayer. Prayer, for him, is central to his soul; as he writes: “Prayer includes every pursuit of the soul, in meditation, reading, listening, [and] praying.”[2] Andrew Kosten suggests that “to know…Luther at his best, one must become acquainted with him as a man of devotion.”[3] Thus, to some degree, to study Luther and his theology apart from his spirituality is to miss the context of his whole personality both as a reformer and a theologian.
A. Prayer and Luther’s reform
Even the Reformation that Luther began was done against that backdrop of spirituality, particularly of prayer. For example, when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses (1517) on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, his intent was actually to reform the Roman Catholic Church’s view of prayer in relation to indulgence.[4] In the forty-eighth thesis, he exposes that the pope has become more interested in money of the people than in their prayer.[5] Likewise, from the eighty-second to the eighty-ninth theses, he questions that if the pope, through his prayer “for a consideration of money” of the people, could take their loved ones’ souls from purgatory to heaven, why did he not just empty purgatory “for pure love’s sake”?[6] Such a question implies that while at this time Luther “did not…yet deny the validity of indulgences or the sacrament of penance out of which they had grown,”[7] he felt that something was wrong in the attitude of the church toward prayer.
William Russell is therefore not exaggerating when he asserts that “For…Luther, the reformation was about how the church prays.”[8] Russell argues that “The emphasis on prayer in the context of catechetical instruction is the heart of Luther’s reformation theology.”[9] Luther’s Small and Larger Catechisms (1529)[10] were “part of [his]… longstanding attempt to reform the educational practices in the congregations of his day.”[11] They were, insofar as prayer is concerned, intended not only to inform people about prayer, but also to instruct them how to pray.[12] Luther desired to reform both their doctrine and practice of prayer, because for him, “the act of Christian prayer ‘enacts’ doctrine, just as doctrine ‘informs’ prayer. They are inseparable in Luther’s understanding of catechesis.”[13]
Russell also points out that even before the birth of the Reformation on October 31, 1517, Luther already gave emphasis on prayer in catechesis in his reformation agenda.[14] “For example, already in October of 1516, fully a year before he posted the Ninety-Five Theses, Luther preached on the Lord’s Prayer and published both a Latin and German exposition of it. The reformer returned to this theme again five months later when he preached a series on the Lord’s Prayer during Lent of 1517.”[15]
Moreover, as seen already in his 1529 catechism, Luther’s focus on prayer in his reformatory program continued even beyond the event of the Reformation. On December 1518, “he preached another series of sermons on the Lord’s Prayer…for children and ‘simple lay people.’”[16] Afterwards, he published his Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen on April of 1519.[17] Shortly after this publication, he “preached on prayer once again.”[18] This was followed by his treatise, A Short Form of the Ten Commandments, a Short Form of the Creed, a Short Form of the Lord’s Prayer (May, 1520),[19] which “served to replace Roman prayer book.”[20] Two years later, came his Personal Prayer Book (1522),[21] his reformed version of the old personal prayer books “used in the medieval church for centuries.”[22] In the introduction of this book, Luther notes that these old medieval prayer books “need a basic and thorough reformation if not total extermination.”[23] He entreats “everyone to break away from using the Bridget prayers[24] and any other which are ornamented with indulgence or rewards and urge all to get accustomed to praying this plain, ordinary Christian prayer [i.e. The Lord’s Prayer].”[25] And in 1535 Luther produced his treatise, A Simple Way to Pray,[26] which “reveals a lifelong use of the catechism…as a daily resource for prayer.”[27]
This survey shows that prayer is an essential element of Luther’s reform. “Prayer was the point of the theological reform program he envisioned for the church.”[28] “Indeed,” states Russell, “a, if not the, distinctive feature of the Lutheran Reformation program is its consistent emphasis on reforming the way Christians pray.”[29] In line of this, “Freidrich Heiler has said that it was as a man of prayer that Luther became a great reformer and the ‘inaugurator of a new era in the history of Christianity.’”[30] Hence, it could be conjectured that prayer is an important key to understanding Luther as a reformer. He is a reformer of prayer.
B. Prayer and Luther’s theology
While prayer is a significant factor to comprehending Luther as a reformer, it also functions as a framework for interpreting him as a theologian. As Russell says: “The theology of…Luther is a theology of prayer.”[31] It is then advisable to approach Luther’s theology with a thought in mind that he thinks as a theologian of prayer. For Luther, prayer is “a central component of his theological reflections.”[32] When he “considered the intellectual content of the Christian faith, he could not help but include prayer in his deliberations.”[33] This point is evident in his 1529 catechism— Luther’s favorite tool in teaching the basics of Christian belief—which has a section on the Lord’s Prayer, along with the Decalogue and the Creed. In fact, the Short Catechism even contains two segments called “Morning and Evening Prayers: How the head of the family shall teach his household to say morning and evening,” and “Grace at Table: How the head of the family shall teach his household to offer blessing and thanksgiving at table.”[34] These two short segments intensify further the mentioned point.
It is also interesting to know that in his Short Catechism, Luther’s exposition of the Lord’s Prayer is infused with a word of prayer itself. In the first petition (Hallowed be thy name), Luther asks, “How is this done?” Here is his answer sprinkled with prayers:
When the Word of God is taught clearly and purely and we, as children of God, lead holy lives in accordance with it. Help us to do this, dear Father in heaven! But whosoever teaches and lives otherwise than as the Word of God teaches, profanes the name of God among us. From this preserve us, heavenly Father![35]
Furthermore, Luther’s The Seven Penitential Psalms (1517),[36] his first published book,[37] which according to Gerhard Ebeling, ‘“…provides a key to his [Luther’s] entire theology, and so to his literary work as a whole,”’[38] concerns “a viable—and practical—theology of prayer, as expressed in the psalmist’s prayers.”[39] And as observed before, some of his writings and sermons, as a manifestation of his theology, regard the subject of prayer considerably. His other major works on prayer include: On Rogationtide Prayer and Procession (1519),[40] preached in response to the abuses of the observance of Rogation days;[41] and, Appeal for Prayer against the Turks (1541),[42] which “includes instructions for suitable public worship services and a form for public prayer.”[43]
As a practical theologian, Luther sought to share his theology in layman’s term. And this interest is best found in his demonstration of his theology of prayer. Hence, come his Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen (1519) and A Simple Way to Pray for a Good Friend (1535). In his Short Catechism, he reminds his audience that the Lord’s Prayer has to be taught in understandable words: “in the plain form in which the head of the family shall teach it to his household.”[44] Carr is thus right to pronounce that “the hallmark of Lutheran prayer would be its simplicity.”[45]
Also, when Luther was asked to recant his theology at the Diet of Worms in 1521, who will think that his famous reply enclosed a short prayer:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my consciences is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.
I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen.[46]
Russell comments that “The way Luther prayed and the many differing circumstances in which he prayed—together with his extensive theological deliberations on prayer—form a comprehensive presentation of the reformer’s theology, in the form that was perhaps most significant to Luther himself.”[47]
Therefore, for Luther, prayer and theology are woven together. Martin E. Lehmann also concludes: “It is clear that his [Luther’s] understanding of prayer can in no way be isolated from the totality of his theology. Indeed, it can be said that prayer is an integral and significant part of his entire theology.”[48] It could be inferred then that prayer is one important key to knowing Luther as a theologian. Prayer provides a background for his theology. As such, it is a mistake to approach Luther’s theology apart from his life as a man of prayer.
[1] J. A. Morrison, Martin Luther: The Great Reformer, rev. and ed. Michael J. McHugh (Illinois: Christian Liberty Press, 1994).
[2] Martin Luther, “Explanation of the Ninety-Five Theses,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 31, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957), 86 [hereafter only LW 31:86]. I owe this reference to William R. Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” in Let Christ Be Christ: Theology, Ethics, & World Religions in the Two Kingdoms, ed. Daniel N. Harmelink (California: Tentatio Press, 1999), 295.
[3] Andrew W. Kosten, trans., Preface to Devotions and Prayers of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965), 5.
[4] In these theses, “Luther applied his evangelical theology to indulgences…. [However, here] He did not even mention justification by faith …, although the implications of that doctrine are present and were not lost upon his enemies,” Luther, Introduction to “Ninety-five Theses,” in LW 31: 19.
[5] Ibid., 29.
[6] Ibid., 32.
[7] Introduction to Ibid., 19.
[8] William R. Russell, “Luther, Prayer, and the Reformation,” Word & World 22, no. 1 (2002): 49.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Martin Luther, “The Small Catechism” and “The Large Catechism,” in The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 337-357. To minimize redundancy, the two catechisms will, hereafter, be referred to as the ‘1529 catechism.’
[11] Ibid., 50.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 51.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Luther, “An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laymen,” in LW 42: 19-81.
[18] Russell, “Luther, Prayer, and the Reformation,” 51.
[19] See Ibid., 51.
[20] Luther, Introduction to “Personal Prayer Book,” in LW 43: 6.
[21] Ibid., 11-45.
[22] Introduction to Ibid., 5
[23] Ibid., 11-12.
[24] “St. Bridget (1303-1373) was a Swedish saint and mystic who was canonized in 1391. Her literary works include four prayers, but in the flowering of legends around her captivating personality, a set of fifteen prayers was ascribed to her and used frequently in the spiritual exercises of the devout. Personal prayer books promised that the Bridget prayers would gain for the user a) the salvation of forty souls of the same sex as the person offering the prayers, b) the conversion of forty sinners, and c) the strengthening of forty-six righteous persons.” Footnote to Ibid., 12.
[25] Ibid., 12-13.
[26] Luther, “A Simple Way to Pray,” in LW 43: 193-211.
[27] Introduction to Ibid., 190.
[28] William R. Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” 293.
[29] Russell, “Luther, Prayer, and the Reformation,” 54.
[30] Deanna Marie Carr, “A Consideration of the Meaning of Prayer in the Life of Martin Luther,” in Concordia Theological Monthly 42, no. 10 (1971): 629.
[31] Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” 293.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Luther, “The Small Catechism,” 352-3.
[35] Ibid., 346 (italics mine).
[36] Luther, “The Seven Penitential Psalms,” in LW 14:137-205. I owe this reference to Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” 295.
[37] See Introduction to LW 14: ix.
[38] Cited in Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” 295.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Luther, “On Rogationtide Prayer and Procession,” LW 42: 87-93.
[41] Days of prayer to receive God’s pardon for sin, protection from danger, and prosperity in harvest.
[42] Luther, “Appeal for Prayer against the Turks,” in LW 43: 219-41.
[43] Introduction to Ibid., 216-17.
[44] Luther, “The Small Catechism,” 346.
[45] Carr, “A Consideration of the Meaning of Prayer in the Life of Martin Luther,” 623.
[46] Luther, “Luther at the Diet of Worms,” in LW 32: 112-13 (italics mine).
[47] Russell, “Prayer: The Practical Focus of Luther’s Theology,” 295.
[48] Martin E. Lehmann, Luther and Prayer (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1985), x.
John Owen considered prayer the heart of all religion: “All men will readily acknowledge that as without it [prayer] there can be no religion at all, so the life and exercise of all religion doth principally consist therein.”[1] Indeed, for Owen, prayer was an indispensable element of religion, as he again said: “without it there neither is nor can be the exercise of any religion in the world.”[2] It is then without surprise that Owen wrote on the subject of prayer, as he regarded it as extremely vital to religion. One significant treatise he penned about prayer is his The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer.[3]
From this treatise, it can be observedthat Owen typically thought and wrote inseparably as a pneumatologist, polemicist, Puritan Renaissance, and pastor.[4] Thus, it is important to study his view of prayer in these four contexts: (1) pneumatological; (2) polemical; (3) Puritan Renaissance; and (4) pastoral.
Pneumatological Context
Owen did not really write a book on prayer per se. His Communion with God (1657),[5] which is often thought to be a work on prayer, is not really about prayer; it is rather a treatise on the Trinity. Timothy George states: Communion with God is Owen’s “classic study of Trinitarian spirituality.”[6] Moreover, Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, while it deals with the subject of prayer, is not primarily a discourse on prayer, but on the Holy Spirit. William H. Goold, in his Prefatory Note to Owen’s treatise, points out:
The treatise itself unfolds the evidence and nature of the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit in prayer, and would be esteemed meager and incomplete if it were regarded as a treatise on the whole subject of prayer. To understand its precise scope, it must be considered simply as another book in the general work of our author on the dispensation and operations of the Holy Spirit. Even the subsidiary discussions, on the mental prayer of the church of Rome, and the use of devotional formulas, are evidently connected with the peculiar and distinctive object of the treatise,—as designed to illustrate the operations of the Spirit in the devotional exercise of believers.[7]
From Owen’s Preface to the Reader itself, it is clear that his purpose principally pertains to the subject of the Holy Spirit:
This is the design of the ensuing discourse. There is in the Scripture a promise of the Holy Ghost to be given unto the church as “a Spirit of grace and of supplications.” As such, also, there are particular operations ascribed unto him. Mention is likewise frequently made of the aids and assistances which he affords unto believers in and unto prayers. Hence they are said to “pray always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.”[8]
Here it is noticeable that prayer is a secondary concern of Owen in his book. As he further explains: “The inquiries before us are concerning the nature of the work of the Holy Spirit in the aids and assistances which he gives unto believers in and unto their prayers, according unto the mind of God.”[9] Again in the beginning of the body of his treatise, he says: “…my purpose is not to treat of the nature, necessity, properties, uses, effects, and advantages, of this gracious duty [i.e. prayer]….The interest of the Holy Spirit of God by his gracious operations in it is that alone which I shall inquire into.”[10]
Therefore to read Owen’s treatise and to understand his thoughts on prayer in a pneumatological context is essential. To do otherwise is to interpret Owen out of context which is a mistake. Goold is right to assert that this disquisition is part of Owen’s general work on pneumatology.[11] Sinclair Ferguson puts it this way:
Owen gave the theme of prayer extended treatment in only one place, in the context of his work on the Holy Spirit. It is therefore concerned particularly with the work of the Spirit in prayer, and is characterized by the vigour and strength of the doctrine of prayer elucidated in the reformed tradition of the previous century.”[12]
Nevertheless, this treatise is what may be regarded as Owen’s most inclusive published work in regard to prayer.
Owen as a primary pneumatologist
Owen wrote on prayer as a primary pneumatologist. His concept of prayer is framed by his pneumatology. This should not, however, startle his readers, because Owen was a Puritan pneumatologist.[13] In fact, he is regarded as “a pioneer in the doctrine of the Spirit.”[14] Goold states: “It has sometimes been questioned if Owen, with all his excellencies and gifts, has any claim to be regarded as an original thinker [i.e. of the doctrine of the Spirit]. This treatise[15] of itself substantiates such a claim in his behalf.”[16] Owen himself seems to have claimed this title for himself: “I know not any who ever went before me in this design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit, with all his adjuncts, operations, and effects….” [17] Geoffrey Nuttall gives an interesting annotation to this statement:
When John Owen…declares, ‘I know not of any who ever went before me in this Design of representing the whole economy of the Holy Spirit’, he is neither ignorant of, nor antagonistic to, the work of the early Fathers… Neither Owen nor his any of his fellow authors is concerned to deny or to controvert the classic expositions of the doctrine. Their concern is rather to draw out its implications for faith and practice. What is new, and what justifies Owen in his claim to be among the pioneers, is the place given in Puritan exposition to experience, and its acceptance as a primary authority, in the way indicated in the passage just quoted. The interest is primarily not dogmatic, at least not in any theoretic sense, it is experimental. There is theology, but, in a way which has hardly been known since St. Augustine, it is a theologia pectoris.[18]
Owen as a practical pneumatologist
From Nuttall’s assertion, what is fascinating about Owen as a pneumatologist is that he was not only concerned with the theology of the Holy Spirit, but also with the application of that theology in other dimensions of doctrine and life. Ferguson observes that it was Owen’s passion to translate “knowledge into experience.”[19] Owen did not only answer the inquiries about the person of the Spirit, but about His works as well; thus, his treatise—The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. Indeed, Owen was a practical or experiential pneumatologist. This is how he differed from other pneumatologists who had gone before him. As Ferguson says:
He was well aware that a number of the Church Fathers of the first five centuries had written on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Owen was familiar with the work of such great early luminaries as Cyprian, Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom, as well as others). But their chief concern was the Spirit’s divine identity. While Owen lays emphasis on this, he is also concerned to expound how the Spirit works.[20]
Don M. Everson also stresses a similar point, comparing Owen with the French Reformer, John Calvin. “Calvin had a doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” says Everson, “but it was ‘…a necessity of thought rather than something known in experience.’ In Owen’s thought, the work of the Spirit of God touched and colored almost all of the Christian revelation and the Christian life.”[21] One may disagree with Everson that Calvin’s pneumatology was ‘…a necessity of thought rather than something known in experience.’ Roy Walter Williams, for instance, states that “Calvin had a distinctive doctrine of the Holy Spirit which included both objective theories and subjective experience; sometimes he combined both, as he did in his concept of the self-authentication of the Scripture through the indwelling Spirit in the Christian.”[22] However, one cannot deny that this experiential pneumatology already found in Calvin (and in other Reformers), did not reach its maturity until the time of the Puritans, who brought it to its pinnacle. As Williams avouches: “experiential pneumatology” is a “unique contribution of the Puritans.”[23] It was the Reformers who recovered “an understanding and experience of the role of the Holy Spirit in the church and in the individual,”[24] but it was the Puritans who developed it. Williams further claims that “the economy of the Holy Spirit in prayer was a central concept for both Puritan doctrine of the Christian life and the worship of the church.”[25] This special emphasis on the Spirit’s work in prayer is conspicuous in the treatise of Owen in whose writings the so-called experiential pneumatology “finds its culmination.”[26]
Going back to the Calvin-Owen comparison, unlike Owen, Calvin particularly devoted pages to the subject of prayer in his Institutes.[27] Yet as far as pneumatological emphasis on prayer is concerned, Owen undoubtedly surpassed Calvin.[28] But why did Owen especially place pneumatological accent on prayer? Owen writes: “…it cannot be denied but that the work and actings of the Spirit of grace in and towards believers with respect unto the duty of prayer are more frequently and expressly asserted in the Scripture than his operations with respect unto any other particular grace or duty whatever.”[29] Owen saw that the Scripture itself gives special emphasis on the Spirit’s role in prayer. For Owen, the Spirit was indispensable because without Him no person can pray: “Without this [i.e. the Spirit’s work]…it will be granted that no man can pray as he ought.”[30] This is Owen’s solus Spiritus in prayer.
Polemical Context
Owen did not only write as a pneumatologist on the subject of prayer; he also wrote as a polemicist. One reason why Owen was concerned with the study of the operation of the Holy Spirit in prayer is that he wanted to provide biblical teachings which would refute erroneous persuasions and practices of prayer that he found rooted in unbiblical pneumatology. He was therefore writing apologetically against those whose perception of prayer was pneumatologically unscriptural. Carl Trueman, in light of all of Owen’s writings, groups Owen’s theological opponents into three broad categories: Papists, Arminians, and Socinians. He says: “Of these three, the Papists were the least important to Owen and took up proportionately less of his time.”[31] Ferguson, on the other hand, in the context of Owen’s entire discourse on the Spirit, sees three polemical targets: “[1] Ritualism that retains a form of godliness but has no experience of its power; [2] rationalism that is rooted in man rather than in revelation; [3] spiritualism that placed its stress on the immediacy of experiences rather than on the already given revelation in Scripture.”[32] However, in Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, his most polemical object was the Papists or Roman Catholic Church.[33]
Owen’s polemical opponent: the Papists
Owen’s treatise is a rebuttal toward the Roman Catholic Church, which substitutes the Scripture for traditions. Owen is particularly concerned with the issue of the use of forms of prayer found in Roman liturgical books—the Roman Breviary and the Missal.[34] Owen’s last two chapters[35] are especially intended for this issue. To Owen, the use of these “set or humanly-devised forms of prayer”[36] is by implication a rejection of the aids and assistances of the Holy Spirit in prayer. Owen argues that nowhere in the Scripture are Christians commanded to compose prayer for others; they are commanded to pray for others, but not to make prayers for them.[37] But Owen is not completely against the utility of forms of prayer. He explains: “Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.”[38] So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set or written prayers, he exceptionally sanctions the use of prayers found in the Scripture (such as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David) as forms.
Owen’s principles in prayer
Owen has two rules of judgment that he uses in his treatise to address his polemical target: “Scripture revelation and spiritual experience of them that do believe.”[39]But along with these two, he adds what he calls “some generally-allowed principles.”[40] These three rules will be briefly discussed below.
Scripture revelation
Owen, like the Reformers, held the sola scriptura principle, which states that the sacred Scripture is the only source for faith and practice. Owen applied this principle to his theology of prayer—that prayer must be regulated by Scripture alone. In his Preface to the Reader, he said: “All other reasonings, from customs, traditions, and feigned consequences, are here of no use.”[41] Owen was talking about the Roman Catholic Church, which reasoned from her traditions to justify her matter and manner of prayer. He also mentioned, in the context of forms of prayer found in the Roman Missal, that “common people, at least of the communion of the papal church, do believe it [Mass book] to be as much of a divine original as the Scripture….”[42] Owen, on the other hand, with his sola scriptura principle, based his reasoning on his exposition of the Scripture: “Wherefore, the foundation of the whole ensuing discourse is laid in the consideration and exposition of some of those texts of Scripture wherein these things are expressly revealed and proposed unto us….”[43] Owen put the Scripture above traditions. Owen’s regulative principle in prayer is also obvious in his frequent mention of praying “according to the mind of God,”[44] by which he means praying according to the word of God, as opposed to the traditions of men.
Spiritual experience
Owen’s second rule of judgment is the ‘spiritual experience of them that do believe,’ which he did not elaborate well. However, aware of the tendency to spiritualism, he asserted that this spiritual experience “is to be regulated by the former [i.e. Scripture revelation].”[45] He went on to say that once this spiritual experience is regulated by the Scripture, “it is a safe rule unto them in whom it is.”[46] But the addition of this spiritual experience does not mean that Owen contradicts himself in his sola scriptura principle, he merely tries to avoid the other tendency, which is ritualism that robs experiential emphasis and places excessive emphasis on rituals. For Owen, prayer must be both scriptural and experiential.
At the end of his discussion concerning these two rules of judgment, Owen concludes: “The substance of what we plead from Scripture and experience is only this, That whereas God hath graciously promised his Holy Spirit, as a Spirit of grace and supplications, unto them that do believe, enabling them to pray according to his mind and will, in all the circumstances and capacities wherein they are, or which they may be called unto, it is the duty of them who are enlightened with the truth hereof to expect those promised aids and assistances in and unto their prayers, and to pray according to the ability which they receive thereby.”[47]
This statement confirms that Owen is not promoting spiritualism in prayer; rather, he seeks to pursue a balanced approach in prayer—scriptural yet experiential.
Some generally-allowed principles
Besides the two rules of judgment mentioned already, Owen appends what he describes as ‘some generally-allowed principles’ in prayer: “But moreover, as was before intimated, there are some generally-allowed principles, which, though not always duly considered, yet cannot at any time be modestly denied, that give direction towards the right performance of our duty herein.”[48] Then he enumerates eight principles.
a. It is the duty of every man to pray for himself.
b. It is the duty of some, by virtue of natural relation or of office, to pray with and for others also.
c. Every one who prayeth, either by himself and for himself, or with others and for them, is obliged, as unto all the uses, properties, and circumstances of prayer, to pray as well as he is able….
d. In our reasonable service, the best wherewith we can serve God consists in the intense, sincere actings of the faculties and affections of our minds, according unto their respective powers, through the use of the best assistances we can attain.
e. There is no man but, in the use of the aids which God hath prepared for that purpose, is able to pray according to the will of God, and as he is in duty obliged, whether he pray by himself and for himself, or with others and for them also.
f. We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.
g. There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.
h. Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.[49]
These eight principles are what can be regarded as Owen’s abstract for his treatise on prayer.
Puritan Renaissance Context
Owen was beyond doubt a Puritan. He was in fact born in a place “noted for its Puritan and Reformed sympathies.”[50] He was a Reformed Puritan. But Owen can also be called a Puritan Renaissance man, as Sebastian Rehnman says: “The plurality of influences present in Owen’s thought firmly establishes him as a typical Renaissance man.”[51] This plurality of influences includes patristic and medieval sways. In Owen’s The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, this is especially true where Owen cited church Fathers (Didymus the Blind, Chrysostom, Origen, and Augustine)[52] and medieval authorities (Bernard of Clairvaux, John Damascene, and Venerable Bede)[53] to strengthen his Reformed perspective on prayer. Interestingly, Owen did not refer to the Protestant Reformed writers in his treatise. One reason for this may be “the habit of seventeenth century authors of refraining from referring to contemporary authors because those of great antiquity were more fashionable.”[54]
Owen also quoted pagan authors (Livy, Virgil, and Cato the Elder)[55] for the same purpose—to fortify his theological argument in his discourse. The quoting of these pagan writers shows something about Owen’s character—that he would not hesitate to use pagan classical writings in support of his Reformed position.[56] Owen also dialogued with Plotinus[57] (a pagan philosopher, who had been influential to some of the church Fathers) and Cressey[58] (a seventeenth century writer and supporter of the pope). This proves Owen to be well-versed in both classical and contemporary writings of his day. His treatise is a masterpiece that reflects his scholarship as a Puritan Renaissance.
Pastoral Context
Owen’s pastoral heart can be seen in his words when after surveying his polemical opponents, he says: “That which should principally guide us in the management of this inquiry is, that it be done unto spiritual advantage and edification, without strife or contention.”[59] So while writing as a theologian and apologist, Owen was very pastoral in his heart. He did not write to merely investigate the truth and refute errors, but to also promote spiritual growth. Ferguson testifies of this: “My own reading of Owen has convinced me that everything he wrote for his contemporaries had a practical and pastoral aim in view—the promotion of true Christian living.”[60]
Owen’s pastoral concern is also evident by the way he practically applies his teachings to church people. For instance, after he has given his point that “It is the duty of some, by virtue of natural relation or of office, to pray with and for others also,”[61] he addresses the parents: “So is it the duty of parents and masters of families to pray with and for their children and households.” He also addresses his fellow pastors, saying: “In the like manner it is the duty of ministers to pray with and for their flocks, by virtue of special institution.”[62] This is noteworthy because Owen’s book is theologically apologetic in nature. But as John Piper says: “He [Owen] was always essentially a pastor….All of his writing was done in the press of pastoral duties.”[63]
Hence, Owen as a pneumatologist probes the truth; as a polemicist protects the truth; as a Puritan Renaissance reinforces the truth with patristic, medieval, and even pagan sources; and as a pastor practices the truth.
Owen’s practical thoughts on prayer
Despite all his heavy theological baggage in mind, Owen defines prayer in a very practical way: “a gift, ability, or spiritual faculty of exercising faith, love, reverence, fear, delight, and other graces, in a way of vocal requests, supplication, and praises unto God.”[64] Prayer is “the most natural and most eminent way and means of our converse with God….”[65] It is “the vital breath of our spiritual life unto God.”[66] It is a gracious duty of those who believe in God, as Owen says: “To own a Divine Being is to own that which is to be prayed for unto, and that it is our duty so to do.”[67] Prayer is an acknowledgment of the presence of God. Therefore, to neglect to pray is “a sufficient evidence of practical atheism (for he that prayeth not says in his heart, ‘There is no God’).”[68]
Owen’s piety in prayer
One thing that deserves attention in Owen’s treatise is his emphasis on piety in connection to prayer. He calls prayer a “holy practice.”[69] Prayer, for Owen, is a “holy intercourse with God,” which includes a “holy delight in God.”[70] On one occasion, he said that to deny the peculiar aids and assistance of the Holy Spirit in prayer is “to overthrow the foundation of the holiness and comfort of all believers….”[71] Thus, to Owen, biblical prayer is foundational to Christian holiness. Owen explains to his readers that the Holy Spirit helps them to pray, “that the issue of their supplication may be the improvement of holiness in them, and thereby their conformity unto God, with their nearer access unto him.”[72] In short, prayer must be for the improvement of our piety. It must make us more and more godly. If this is not the case, says Owen, our prayer is “an abomination” to the Lord,[73] because our practice of prayer must produce progress in our personal piety. Indeed, this is Owen’s goal in life—personal piety! Piper says: “From his writings and from the testimony of others it seems fair to say that the aim of personal holiness in all of life, and the mortifying of all known sin, really was the labor not only of his teaching but of his personal life.”[74]
It is not then an exaggeration when David Clarkson, during the funeral service of Owen, gave this address: “I need not to tell you of this who knew him, that it was his great Design to promote Holiness in the Life and Exercise of it among you….”[75]
Conclusion
Owen’s view of prayer can be best seen in The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer. Though this book was written primarily as a treatise on the Spirit, it is here that Owen reveals his thoughts on prayer explicitly and extensively. One also finds here Owen writing on prayer simultaneously as a pneumatologist, polemist, Puritan Renaissance, and pastor. As a pneumatologist, he probes the theology of prayer pneumatologically; as a polemicist, he protects the biblical doctrine of prayer from his theological opponents; as a Puritan Renaissance, he props up his position with the use of patristic, medieval, and even pagan sources; and as a pastor, he puts this doctrine of prayer experientially into practical application.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis
Battles. 2 vols. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2001.
Everson, Don Marvin. “The Puritan Theology of John Owen” Th. D. diss., Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1959.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1987.
John Owen—the man and his theology. Edited by Robert W. Oliver. Phillipsburg, NJ: P
& R Publishing Company, 2002.
Nuttall, Geoffrey F. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 2. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
________. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 3. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1966.
________. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 4. Edited by William Goold. Edinburgh: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.
________. Communion With The Triune God. Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin
Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007.
_________, and Sinclair B. Ferguson. The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. Fearn,
Ross-shire Christian Heritage, 2004.
Piper, John. Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives
of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen. Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Books, 2006.
Reformation and Scholasticism. Edited by Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001.
Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology. Cumbria,
U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1998.
________. John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man. Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 2007.
Williams, Roy Walter. “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer” Ph.D. diss.,
University of London, 1982.
[1] John Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” in The Works of John Owen, vol. 4, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 237.
[2] Ibid., 251.
[3] This discourse was first published in 1682, and its original edition is still in the public domain. It is Owen’s seventh treatise on his whole work on pneumatology in the edition of William H. Goold, volumes 3 & 4, first published by Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-53, then reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in 1967.
[4] Owen’s style in writing can be generally categorized into four: (1) exegesis; (2) systematic theology; (3) polemics; and (4) practical application. He would first exegete the text, then draw theology out of his exegesis, and once the doctrine had been drawn, he deduced some practical applications, and oftentimes dialogued polemically with others who had different views of the doctrine he was studying. Hence, he wrote as an exegete, systematic theologian, polemicist, and pastor. This style is also seen in other Puritans.
[5] John Owen, “Communion with God,” in TheWorks of John Owen, vol. 2, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 1-274. This treatise has been revised and edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor to make it accessible to modern readers. See John Owen, Communion With The Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007).
[6]Timothy George, Blurb in John Owen, Communion With The Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 8.
[7] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 236.
[8] Ibid., 237. See also Ibid., 254.
[9] Ibid., 238.
[10] Ibid., 252.
[11] Ibid., 236. For Owen’s other writings on pneumatology see his Works, vols. 3 & 4.
[12] Sinclair B. Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 224.
[13] For an in-depth study of Owen’s pneumatology, see Dale A. Stover, “The Pneumatology of John Owen: A Study of the Role of the Holy Spirit in Relation to the Shape of a Theology” (Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 1967).
[14] Don Marvin Everson, “The Puritan Theology of John Owen” (Th. D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1959), 12.
[15] Goold is referring to Owen’s The Reason of Faith (1677), which is Owen’s sixth book in his entire work on pneumatology.
[16] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 4.
[17] Owen, Works, III: 7.
[18] Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 7.
[19] John Owen and Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Heritage, 2004), 24.
[20] Ibid., 23.
[21] Everson, “The Puritan Theology of John Owen,” 12.
[22] Roy Walter Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer” (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1982), 84.
[23] Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer,” 81.
[24] Sinclair Ferguson, “John Owen and the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in John Owen—the man and his theology, ed. Robert W. Oliver (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing Company, 2002), 103.
[25] Williams, “The Puritan Concept and Practice of Prayer,” 94.
[26] Ibid., 86.
[27] See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2001), II: 850-920.
[28] Calvin has a section called ‘The Holy Spirit aids right prayer’ in his treatise on prayer in the Institutes. But it only covers about one page of his 70-page treatise on prayer. See Ibid., 853-4.
[29] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 253.
[30] Ibid., 271. See also Ibid., 259 & 312.
[31] Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology (Carlisle, UK.: Paternoster, 1998), 19.
[32] Owen and Ferguson, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 23.
[33] Owen’s minor polemic objects include: the Jews (243); the orthodox and the Arians (243); and the Pelagians (249, 279).
[34] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 238, 241.
[35] Ibid., 328-50.
[36] Ibid., 248.
[37] Ibid., 240.
[38] Ibid., (italics his).
[39] Ibid., 238.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid, 241.
[43] Ibid, 238.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid., 239 (italics his).
[48] Ibid.
[49] Ibid, 239-40.
[50] Sebastian Rehnman, “John Owen: A Reformed Scholastic at Oxford,” in Reformation and Scholasticism, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2001), 181.
[51] Ibid., 186.
[52] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 255, 268, 285, 330.
[53] Ibid., 281, 286, 330.
[54] Rehnman, “John Owen: A Reformed Scholastic at Oxford,” 185.
[55] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 257, 258.
[56] Carl Trueman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007), 15.
[57] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 329.
[58] Ibid., 247, 328.
[59] Ibid., 238.
[60]Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, xi.
[61] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 239.
[62] Ibid. See also Ibid., 313.
[63] John Piper, Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 89.
[64] Owen, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer,” 271.
[65] Ibid, 252.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid, 239.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid., 291.
[71] Ibid, 248.
[72] Ibid., 286. Italics his.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Piper, Contending for Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the Lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen, 99.
[75] Cited in Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, xiii.
born and raised in the Philippines; a pastor-teacher; a current Ph.D. student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky; a member of Calvin Studies Society, Evangelical Theological Society and International John Bunyan Society; and above all a poor needy sinner saved by God's grace alone.
