Covenant Theology: The Church (Part 1)

Westminster Presbyterian Church ^ | Dr. James E. Bordwine

[Elsie]

Earlier this month (on honeymoon) I was IN a Penguin in Cancun....

(A Penguin rocery store...)

[Elsie]

Let's REALLY get this thread off of the original idea by get the Mac vs PC riot going as well as the A vs C and the L vs W one!!!

---

WAIT!!!

What about the RC's vs Prot and the LDS vs 'real' Christians, as long as we're doing this!!

[Elsie]

"Gee"

what's missing?????

[CCWoody]

Let me at him, then. ME rocks when it is rockin'.

Woody.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Let's REALLY get this thread off of the original idea by get the Mac vs PC riot going as well as the A vs C and the L vs W one!!!

Absolutely! i do have one minor bit of "housekeeping" to get out of the way, CONGRADUALTIONS ON THE MARRIAGE!

Now, the original topic of this thread was a subdivision of a teaching series on Covenant Theology called The Church. Calvinists and Lutherines (who are Reformational in their thinking, but NOT Calvinists) see the church as existing where there are the following elements:

• The Faithful preaching of the Word.
• The Administration of the Sacrements.
• Discipline of it's memebers.

Some dispute about the last one, in that it is usually bundled under the first point. drstevej wrote a pretty good article on Calvin's view of Church Discipline (no Servetus Jokes, ok?) For the Westminster Theological Journal.

On Your last point Elsie If we get a good discussion of topic going here, the trolls will come. Soon enough it should get interesting.

[Warlord David]

To hell with english lessons I do just fine Period or no period And what this the ping list from gates of hell If you can't answer the question pose to you concerning the ROCK in greek, get another life A rock is a rock and a rock ledge is something you are having a hard time comprehending or excepting in greek If you cannot except the word for what it says in greek, why bother? Unless you have your own agenda, and not God's agenda in mind

[Warlord David]

Sorry I fell asleep behind the key board

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

As an aside, let me state that to “believe” in Jesus is to accept all that God has caused to be written about Him, it is to embrace Jesus Christ fully as the God-Man. Ignorance of what the Bible teaches about Jesus is no badge of piety; nevertheless, it is not unusual to find professing Christians who think that a well-reasoned and studied understanding of the God-Man somehow diminishes the glory of their salvation. In some circles, it's as though the less you know about doctrine, the holier you must be (“I don't want doctrine, I want Jesus.”). But the Savior's words to Peter are a warning to all of us to guard against efforts to “dumb down” the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So then, is the author maintaining that the church is where correct doctrine (extrapolating from the Christological comment he gave) is given, or is he saying that the church exists external to correct teaching?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

And it was no accident that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, just as Moses presided at Sinai

Could you explain your remarks a bit further? i think you're making a "shadow/substance" distinction, but not quite sure. Sorry for the confusion.

[CCWoody]

Dude! I might be tempted to respond to you, but I have yet to figure out about what precisely you are complaing. The only thing that I am discerning so far is that you seem to be in a bad mood on this thread. You know, with comments like "ping list from [the] gates of hell."

Woody.

[Warlord David]

Sorry It was a supid offhand remark to what Calvinist_Dark_Lord said earlier.

Hope you brought your flame proof clothing when my Catholic freind see this.

Therefore my response was mean in gest, not seriously. And it takes alot to get me angry. If I do, you will know it.
Again sorry for the confusion. It was mean to be a play on words. Until we meet again my freind!!!!!!!!!!

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Hope you brought your flame proof clothing when my Catholic freind see this.

First i didn't say that. Read the post. Second, at least i know where you're coming from now. Ok, No blood, no foul, you're ok with me.

If you look again you'll see that i brought Elsie to this thread to prevent the Catholic Caucus from jumping in on that part of the article. You haven't been around long enough to know yet, but we've all had that argument about 6,000 times now, and none of us want number 6,001, it got old after about 2000. i didn't reply to Elsie because i agree with him on that point.

Are we clear and free now?

[Warlord David]

YES!!! Thanks for the update.