[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.

[HarleyD]

I’m also a little disappointed he went off on this "modern evangelicals" tangent. I think it detracted from what should have been his basic message of the Abrahamic covenant. If pastors would just focus on how scripture applies to one’s life it would make more of an impact. If he wants to talk about homosexuals then go to those verses and say what the scriptures say. I don’t know what he was referring to but this sounded too vague and wishy washy. Well, they can’t all be A+ sermons. :O)

He did make what I feel is a very crucial point about reading and trying to understand the whole Bible. I think there is too much time spent in the New Testament and not enough time spent in the Old Testament. The Lord Jesus “of love” in the New Testament is the same God who spare Noah but destroyed everyone else. He’s the one who told the Israelites to go war and take over the land. And He’s the one who sent the Israelites into captivity for disobedience.

God does not change and is consistent. To understand the whole glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ you must understand both the New and Old Testaments.

PS-I just read the posts by our non-Calvinistic friends. I did not interpret “modern evangelicals” as fundamentalists from his sermon or a slam at non-Calvinistic churches. I interpreted his comments to refer to those liberals in the church today who calls themselves “modern” evangelicals. This is the title they use. Even so I still don’t think he should have spent time on this. You guys are becoming overly sensitized. Isn't there anything GOOD that you learned from the reading?