Covenant Theology: The Covenant of Grace (pt. 1)

Westminster Presbyterian Church ^ | Dr. James E. Bordwine

[sheltonmac]

Threads for previous sermons:

1. The Foundtation
2. The Absolute Sovereignty of the Creator
3. The Absolute Dependence of the Creature
4. The Absolute Necessity of a Mediator
5. The Covenant of Works (pt. 1)
6. The Covenant of Works (pt. 2)

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[P-Marlowe]

This appears to be a hit piece on "Modern Evangelicals" (whatever that is). I suppose it is a hit piece on denominations that have arisen after the reformation. I don't know. But the author stereotypes "modern evangelicals" but doesn't bother to point out that it is often the reformation churches, like the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, that have left their first love and are publically embracing homosexuality and abortion and more often that not it is the the "modern evangelical" churches are the ones holding the line on morality.

Perhaps if the author were to name some names and point out the churches that he thinks are "modern evangelical" it would make some sense. But his piece is nothing short of a stereotypical rant about something I think he really knows nothing about. He just tosses out the term "modern evangelical" and then points out some flaws that I dare say are probably rampant in his own congregation.

The Lukewarm church has been around since the first century. It is not a modern phenomenon. It is not limited to churches that have sprung up in the last century. I dare say that the churhces that have sprung up in the last century probably sprung up principally because the old churches had left their first love and God had called many away from them.

[xzins]

The bottom line is that it's another thread written by one out of a fundamentalist, calvinistic sect (fcs).

Basically, they see an FCS bride in heaven. That, generally, sums it up and is all the comment needed to characterize their groups.

It's good to make note of that every now and then, but other than that discussion is virturally impossible.

[xzins]

virtually....gotta learn to use that spell check.

[Corin Stormhands]

Don't be satisfied to be identified as a modern evangelical; it is not a complement and it is nothing to be proud of in the eyes of God. Study the whole Bible; learn about God and His ways from His many encounters with men like Abraham.

The author paints with too broad a brush when he implies that all evangelicals do not study the Word of God.

[Revelation 911]

The average modern evangelical knows a lot more about what pop psychology thinks about man's problems than what God's word says about man's problems; he knows a lot more about what his friends and neighbors think about morality than what the Creator says about morality. And so, there is a wide chasm between what this kind of Christian says and what he does. He has not studied the Bible and does not know the truth so well illustrated by Abraham: faith without works is dead being by itself.

thats funny - Christ and the repentant thief on the Cross might disagree - he found salvation with ONLY a profession of faith

Now if he were to live a while after professing, sure - works as a fruit should have been demonstrable - but its not conditional to salvation

Im in agreement with you - this is a hit piece and consistent with the tack that to build up "ours" we must tear down "thiers"

[P-Marlowe]

The author paints with too broad a brush when he implies that all evangelicals do not study the Word of God.

Let's say I wanted to hear in depth Bible studies on the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Would I go to the Reformation sites? Well, they might cover a lot of the Bible, but not the entire Bible. But if I searched a "modern Evangelical" site, I bet I could find what I was looking for:

Now if "Modern Evangelicals" don't study the whole bible, then how does the author explain the fact that if you want to study the whole bible, (not just bits and pieces here and there) then more often than not you have to go to a "Modern Evangelical" church?

IMHO, the author knows nothing of what he speaks. He's just painting lukewarm christians and pretending that they are a modern phenomenon limited to newer chruches and newer denominations. Its a cheap shot across the bow. Well I just fired back. Let's see if anyone can find a reformation site with as much Bible Study material as you will find on those "Modern Evangelical" sites.

[Vernon]

He apparently has never attended our Church, but of course we are considered Evangelical.

[Corin Stormhands]

I want the whole Christ for my Savior,
the whole Bible for my book,
the whole Church for my fellowship,
and the whole world for my mission field.
- John Wesley

[Religion Moderator]

It's good to make note of that every now and then...

I think it's also a note that one could better make privately, don't you? :)

[Corin Stormhands]

You would have him hide his light under a bushel?

[Religion Moderator]

Ahem...

[xzins]

I'll think about it. My intent was to DEFUSE a potential flamewar by saying some groups just aren't ever going to like us "everyday evangelicals."

[Corin Stormhands]

Sorry, I'm a pentecostal, we have an obligation to this "flame" thing.

(I'll stop now)

[P-Marlowe]

If you go to the first posting of these sermons you will find this statement by the person who posted it:

Over the course of the next few weeks I hope to post each of Dr. Bordwine's sermons on Covenant Theology. 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.

Well, as a "Modern Evangelical" I think that the author and the poster paint a broad brush and appear to limit the true worshipers of God to those who agree with the FCT theology. Hinting that they have a lock on the true meaning of the bible and they have a lock on studying the whole word of God.

I only wish they'd let us know who they think are the Modern Evangelical churches, so we could prove them right or wrong. But instead they point to the whole evangelical movement as some kind of heretical schism.

xzins just made a note of that, and you called him on the carpet. I think his response was at least as appropos as the authors statements.

[ET(end tyranny)]

thats funny - Christ and the repentant thief on the Cross might disagree - he found salvation with ONLY a profession of faith

I think the thief found salvation because he recognized that he and the other thief deserved what they were getting, because of how they had lived their lives. I think it was the repentant behavior that saved him.

[lockeliberty]

Congratulations, you guys have just proved the authors point. Instead of trying to disprove Covenant Theology you have miscontextualized his comments in much the same way Dispensationalism miscontextualizes the Bible, by ripping it in half and tearing apart any unity that is spoken throughout the book. Now, go and shew youselves approved.

[Religion Moderator]

xzins just made a note of that, and you called him on the carpet.

I wish my father had always called me on the carpet that gently!

Look, I know that most folks are walking on egg shells right now, and that's unfortunate - maybe necessary - but still unfortunate. Coining an acronym like "fcs" (I think that's what it was) is almost guaranteed to generate complaints, and it did. Perhaps my way of pointing that out was a bit too subtle, but in some ways I'm walking on that same egg shell carpet the rest of you are.

Nor do I think we need to belabor the point, or have an extended conversation about the complaints. If we're going to "heal" around here we all need to stop picking at the scabs of old wounds, however gently it's done.

[xzins]

Your point is well-taken.

FCS was used to avoid saying it again.

I think we should just leave this thread and cooperate with the RM. The point was just that this was an article that has the author SAYING "the average modern evangelical is a pale imitation of Biblical faith."

As a modern evangelical, I responded to that as gently as I could, by pointing out that these folks will never accept anyone but their own group.

I want to cooperate with you, though, because I think the new ability to discuss on the Religion Forum is a good thing.

You might,however, consider coming up with some guidelines on how to respond to a thread that attacks either your denomination or your theology and demeans you.

Ultimately, 'No response' isn't fair to those who are being called "pale imitations.' I can see it being fair during the healing time you want.

As a starter, I would suggest:

1. don't attack the poster of the thread because of the words of the author of the thread.

2. feel free to attack any "lines" in the thread that attack you or your group.


What do you think?

Other than that, I'm leaving here.