Hopefully, these sermons will generate some good discussion. Remember the words of Augustine: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."
Marginal note in sermon: "Logic weak. Pound pulpit."
(c;
The Pastor here has not said anything to prove that non-Covenantal systems, i.e. Dispensationalism, teaches something different than the above.
Covenant theology begins with the exalted and holy character of God and proceeds from that starting point to interpret and apply Scripture. In covenant theology, the holiness of God dominates our thinking and determines our understanding of our place before God. In covenant theology, we don't view ourselves as God's equals, we don't view God as existing to serve us, we don't view His word as a list of suggestions-and this is all because we being with His holy character in this system of theology.
The same can be said of Dispensationalism.
These thoughts disturb some modern Christians because some have been taught to believe that God is something other than a sovereign, independent, unchanging Creator. Some have been taught to believe that God somehow owed them salvation; some have even been taught that they cooperate with God in their salvation.
Dispensationalists also teach that God is sovereign, independent, unchanging, and that He owes Mankind nothing. I also don’t think you will find too many Dispensationalists teaching that Man cooperates with God.
Lewis Sperry Chafer wrote this in an article:
Unlike His wisdom, power, and glory, which could be manifested in creation, the grace of God could be manifested only as there were fallen beings toward whom He could be gracious. It is difficult to believe that the exercise of this so essential part of His nature would be suppressed forever, or that, when it is expressed, it would not be on a plane as perfect and as worthy of Himself as are all His works. In verses 4 and 5 of the context of Ephesians 2:1–10 , which context is the central passage of the Bible on divine grace, three closely related words appear- mercy , love , and grace. A distinction is here indicated: Love is the affection or compassion of God for sinners; mercy is that in Him which devised and provided a redemption through the death of His Son; while grace, in its outworking, is that which God is free to do on the ground of that death. God might love sinners with an unutterable compassion and yet, because of the demands of outraged justice and holiness, be precluded from rescuing them from their righteous doom. The essential revelation contained in the gospel of our salvation is this fact that God is now free within Himself to act in grace toward sinners through the death of Christ for them. Since no other freedom to act in behalf of sinners has been secured, it is to be concluded that all God has ever done or will do for sinful men is wrought on the sole basis of Christ’s death. Even though Christ has died and God is thus free to act in grace, the question as to whether He does little or much for men will be determined only according to His sovereign purpose. This freedom He will always exercise as He has exercised it in past ages.
It is nice that Covenant Theology teaches these things, but it is not the only system that teaches them.
That may not be such a good idea. Since they are sermons, intended to strengthen the faith (in Covenant Theology) of people who have already accepted that theology, they seem to lack the logical rigor necessary to convince outsiders.
The Christians here on FR may not agree with everything contained in these posts, but I believe that there are some serious failings in the modern church that need to be addressed, the biggest of which seems to be a lack of understanding of the nature of God.
"... [T]hat there are some serious failings in the modern church that need to be addressed..." is undeniable. Also, there is a widespread "... lack of understanding of the nature of God." However, (in my opinion) the problem is much more serious than "the nature of God." At the very least, we have ungodly people who have intentionally infiltrated the governing bodies and seminaries of the various denominations, with the obvious intention of destroying the faith and morals of the members.
These people will not hear these sermons, at least, not without laughing. They will only be heard by those who (most likely) agree with you, "in essentials." This brings up a point which I find, not only in this particular article, but generally in these discussions of Calvinism:
Calvinists on FR give the impression [that is, they seem or appear to be saying] that they believe that EVERYONE (except Calvinists) belongs to that category of people who believe that
1. God is NOT sovereign.
2. We can justify ourselves, and thus,
3. "force" God to give us salvation.
4. Satan is equal to and can conquer God.
5. WE are equal to God.
While there probably are such people, lurking here on FR, I have not (yet) seen one of them post to a "Calvinism" thread. While this sermon was not this explicit, it is right next to it. People become angry when they are flatly accused of believing things which they would not ever think of believing.
Probably, similar false beliefs have been attributed to Calvinists. If so, THAT was and is just as evil as the converse.
Hopefully, these sermons will generate some good discussion. Remember the words of Augustine: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."
Agreed. Maybe we should look for more things upon which we can agree, instead of things about which to fight.
DG