Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you much for your very very helpful responses - I assure you this isnt just a "fun" Theology talk because for me this has repercussions all the way down to the deepest parts of me. So, to kind of clarify whats happening in me, and what I want to know if what Im thinking/reading/believing is "new" or un-historical in the Church or biblical...:It's not so new. I mean, the church did "Christendom and all." Kuyper sounded new at the time because he preached Christ's lordship in a post-1789 culture. Kuyper knew that one couldn't just "go back to Christendom." One had to "do Christendom" in a new way.
And in Kuyper's situation, the state church was now a problem. It was controlled by liberals. So how do we proclaim the lordship of Christ when we no longer have the financial and legal backing of the state? The reason "the church never majored on this" is that since Constantine she never really had to face this problem.
Unless you can point to more specifics.
Can you, if willing, say this again per chance in a much more dumbed down way so I can understand?Kuyper's sphere sovereignty envisages family, church, state, school, sciences, etc., redeemed by Christ and serving directly under the Lordship of Christ. Puritanism and Presbyterianism taught there are two kingdoms with a creation-redemption or nature-grace distinction to preserve the unique identity of the church as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ which has been constituted under His direct and immediate Headship and is governed by Him as Mediator.
I'm sure Reverend Winzer will reply, but meanwhile, I had a hunch and my friend google paid off to an extent ;Can you, if willing, say this again per chance in a much more dumbed down way so I can understand?
Can you, if willing, say this again per chance in a much more dumbed down way so I can understand?
Long story short, I have for to long thought Christianity was merely "a heaven to gain and hell to shun" and a pious life in response flowing from gratitude, but to be totally honest, that just seemed so un-compelling. I have spent past 3 years seeking something more compelling... And then I start hearing the world "flourishing" from Wright and Keller
Can you, if willing, say this again per chance in a much more dumbed down way so I can understand?
They are generally correct, to the extent they follow Bavinck, that creation will be restored (Grace restores nature).
so restorationist eschatologies must look beyond the present world for the consummation
I am not looking for "consummation" in this age. But what do you think the next, say, two thousand years might bring us?
Should families, schools, and politics be under the Lordship of Christ?