Jeff,

Thanks for the link. I'm thinking that there is a common misconception among many of us Christians in conceptualing 'sphere sovereignty'. I thought it was putting God and His Word into all areas of life. Do you see that as well? I am surprise in the neo-calvinism label the wikipedia article tagged Kuyper with. What does that entail, and does Kuyper fall into that category. I have read comments from you and others about the dangers of presumptive regeneration, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. There are no 2nd or 3rd generation Christians and churches who allow their offsprings into church leadership based on their heritage is a church-killer, well more of a gospel-killer than a church-killer.

While reading Kuyper's entry in "Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Thelogy (published by Baker), I didn't find any negativity toward him with his theology and teachings. I have found this resource to be valuable and accurate. This is a quote contained in the entry,
Quote
"Kuyper is best remembered for his development of the theological doctrine of common grace and his views about the importance of the kingdom of God in Christian thinking, which was influenced by F.D. Maurice. His social and political theory of sphere sovereignty is an attempt to give an intellectual justification to pluralism and create structural means of limiting the powers of the state. Kuyper was keenly aware of the dangers of totalitarianism. He was a strong lover of liberty who recognized that business interests as well as government can oppress the weak; therefore he saw the function of the state as that of preserving God's justice in society."

Maybe there are some confusion with the above quote from the dictionary's entry with how I read it. Does 'his development of . . common grace' means that he introduced the doctrine or just added to an already existing doctrine. I assume the doctrine of common grace has been around long before Kuyper. In addition, I can see if one has a presumptive regeneration view will allow the unregenerate to make the standards,and not God's Word. (I bet he was into the 'golden age' type of postmillennial thinking as well). I might be starting to ramble in my thoughts now but his main error it seems was that he took too lightly the depraved nature of man. For instance, I see nowadays democracy becoming more totalitarianism in nature than in individual freedom which is counter-intuitive in thinking back a few decades ago.

Lastly from left field, his Kuyper thinking represents the difference between the continental Reformed and the Scottish/american Reformed? Probably not in that I would be 'common grace' strongly on the Scottish/american side. Sorry that I lost focused in the last paragraph and a half.

Last edited by John_C; Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:21 PM.
John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7