"The Power of the Church": a sermon by Peter Lumpkins

Below is a sermon I preached some years ago entitled "The Power of the Church." Based upon Romans 1:16, it suggests four reasons why the church's power rests solely in Christ's gospel--the power of God unto salvation; namely, the gospel is the power of God because the gospel,

• bears the authority of God
• promises effectiveness from God
• designed for the entire world
• constitutes the singular hope we possess

Even though I preached this message at a local congregation, I think it possesses broad merit for us today. Less branding strategies and more gospel.

Comments

[Ron F. Hale]

Peter,
I was edified and encouraged by the message ... Thank you!

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Ron. I appreciate it the encouragement, brother...

[Ed Goodman]

The Gospel is a message of reconciliation. Has your blog brought forth reconciliation or division?

[Scott Shaver]

Ed:

I would say that Peter's blog has brought about a great deal of reconciliation and sharing among Baptists and other Christians of all stripes. Not to mention the bridges he tries to build with laity.

If you are referring to reconciliation and division exclusively within the SBC camp .... I'm not sure if such a thing is possible.

[cb scott]

You know, I am constantly amazed at the number of theo-dwarves who frequent Baptist blogs.

Constantly one reads of a one sided presentation of the nature of God or the failure to understand the composite structure of the biblical gospel.

Does not the Scripture reveal both reconciliation and division in describing the essence of the gospel? Who can read the Four Gospels and not understand that? How can one read a chapter such as as Matthew 10 and not see?

I fear there is but one answer:

They do not understand for they have not read. Therefore, they do not see.

[Patrick V]

Ed,

According to Spurgeon "Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else". Should we say Spurgeon was divisive or reconciling to non-Calvinists?

[Ed Goodman]

I recognize the duality of reconciliation and condemnation in the comprehensive presentation of Scripture. In light of the primary focus of Romans 1:16 - "salvation" - it struck me as ironic that Peter could preach about redemption when he all-too-often blogs/comments in an accusatory and condemning manner.

So, C.B., my comment wasn't meant to be exhaustively comprehensive in light of scriptural totality; I merely spoke about the redemptive focus of Romans 1:16. In other words, I engaged Peter's sermon, and the verse he preached about, in context. But, I'm most certainly lacking theologically when compared to your capability, comprehension, and experience. Maybe one day I will be as learned as you.

[Andrew Barker]

Patrick V, I don't think there are many people who would site Spurgeon as the archetypal Calvinist. I think he was too much of a maverick to be that. He certainly got up the noses of plenty of his contemporaries, of both persuasions, with his wise cracks and cigar smoking habit! So I don't think your statement really carries much weight. For what it's worth, I would disagree heartily with any suggestion which condemned us all to accepting Calvinism as 'the' Gospel. God forbid!!

[Lydia]

Ed,

Redemption means blind unity or never disagreeing?
Redemption means never expressing opinions others do not like?

Perhaps redemption means allowing Peter his opinions without insulting him over it. Aren't you even a bit grateful he allowed your comment? Would that be considered an redemptive act? (wink)

[Ed Goodman]

Lydia,

Disagreement is unavoidable and absolutely allowable, even at times admirable. It is the pattern and manner of disagreement that can run contrary to the redemptive intention of the Gospel. I am aware that the Gospel message also includes the reality of eternal damnation, but I thought us non-Calvinists believed that everyone could be redeemed and that God desired everyone to be redeemed (2 Peter 3:9). ;-)

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia & Ed,

The last correspondence Ed left for us at SBC Tomorrow indicated he would no more visit this site because I edify him no longer. That was Sept 2011. I guess I still do not.

Whatever the case, Ed wrongly asserted to CB he "engaged [my] sermon" when he declared the gospel a gospel of reconciliation and then queried, "Has your blog brought forth reconciliation or division?" Of course, given Ed's parting words in 2011, we are fairly certain we know Ed's answer to his query.

But, no, Ed you didn't "engage" my sermon. Instead you did as Lydia suspected and you obviously ignored in your reply to her; namely, you draped your insult directed toward me with a supposed legitimate assertion of the gospel message as reconciliation.

Indeed you gave your cover away not only when being questioned by CB you conceded his point about both reconciliation and division being native to gospel revelation as well as to Lydia you asserted "Disagreement is unavoidable and absolutely allowable, even at times admirable."

Now, unless you'd really like to engage something I actually spoke in the sermon, I bid you a good afternoon, Ed.

[Scott Shaffer]

Good message and delivery. Thanks.

[cb scott]

" Maybe one day I will be as learned as you."

Sorry, Ed Goodman. That is just highly doubtful.

[Robert Vaughn]

"Less branding strategies and more gospel." Amen and amen!

[Andrew]

Peter,

Why do some people choose to love Jesus Christ and others do not? My brother does not love Jesus and I don't know how I can change him.

Thank you,

Andrew

[Patrick V]

Andrew,

I am not Peter nor can I speak for him, but I believe the scripture that says "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the message of Christ." Get your brother to LISTEN to the message of Christ, and the Bible says faith will come.

Jesus repeatedly said "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

In the book of Revelation, 3 times it is stated "He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches."