One further comment: Dr. Henard at one point seemed to say that we avoid sin simply because we don’t want to suffer the consequences of our sin. Isn’t true holiness more than this? Even the worst sinner doesn’t want to suffer the consequences of his sin. The promise of the new covenant in Christ is a new heart that longs for holiness and hates sin. The Christian should flee from sin not simply because of the negative consequences it would bring, but because it dishonors his Lord who died to save him. The only way a desire is ever overcome is by replacing it with a stronger desire. In the regenerate heart, the desire to honor and please God overcomes the desire for sin. This should be our motivation for holiness.

This would have been a good time to bring up the gospel. That we in and of ourselves are slaves to sin. That apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, giving us the desire to please God instead of the flesh.

I don’t want to get nit-picky and certainly I know that everyone doesn’t have to jump to the gospel as quickly as I would when preaching the OT, but I am afraid that I agree with Hank here, Jesus was not mentioned in this sermon. It was a sermon about commitment to moral integrity, a commitment we should all make but will all fail in unless we are abiding in Christ who has called us to repentance and freed us from slavery to sin.

I mean nothing personal in saying this, I merely want to encourage brothers in Christ to preach the gospel in season and out.

Drew’s last blog post..Sufjan and the Old Covenant

I appreciate your comment. And let me just say, I am no preacher. I’m just a lowly 1st year seminarian that needs just as much grace as the next guy, even though neither one of us deserves it. So when I comment on this sermon, please understand that I do so very hesitantly, and yet I will do so very zealously because I’m under the assumption that Christian preaching should be about Christ.

I listened to Dr. Henard’s message again, just to make sure, and I’m almost positive that he never even mentions the name of Christ. Not once. Not even in the closing prayer, as he prays “in your name”. This may sound hyper-critical, but let’s get a little perspective here.

That sermon could have just as well have been preached by a Jewish Rabbi, with no qualms. It’s focus was not the Cross, but moralism. And that troubles me. And frankly, I’m a little surprised that no one else seems to think that this is an issue worth bringing up.

I’m not saying Dr. Henard rejects Biblical Theology, but I am saying that his sermon was a very poor example of it. And I feel it is necessary to remind my seminary brethren that what they saw last Thursday “is not how it’s done.” The contrast between what Goldsworthy was promoting the week before, and what Henard was preaching on Thursday was too much to take quietly.

Does that make sense?

Brother Hank’s last blog post..Witholding the Gospel (of Children) From Ourselves

I listened to the message this morning via iTunes and I am clueless as to where you get your idea that Christ and the Cross were not invited to the chapel message. The message was on Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, a passage that deals with the integrity of Joseph. The message centered on having a life of integrity, which is all about being Christlike and Christ-honoring in all aspects of life, but specifically, to the audience present, in the life of the minister.

I guess I’m just seeking clarification on your accusation/insinuation. That’s all…nothing more or less.

Thanks in advance for your clarification.

Scott’s last blog post..McDonald’s signs onto ?gay? agenda

Am I the only one who feels like Christ and the Cross where not invited to this morning’s sermon outline?

Brother Hank’s last blog post..A Declaration: In Such An Hour Of Crisis