Index for Genesis Sermons

Just in case anyone thought that the only thing I did was polemic against the Federal Vision, here is an index to my now complete sermon series on Genesis. Soli Deo Gloria!

Introduction; Creator of Heaven and Earth (1:1);  Holy Spirit, Creator (1:2); This Little Light of Mine (1:3-5); The Baptism of the World (1:6-8); Land and Verdure (1:9-13); The Light of Day (1:14-19); Monster for the Birds; Gone Fishing (1:20-23); The Beauty of the Beasts (1:24-25); What’s In an Image? (1:26-27); Blessing and Dominion (1:28-31); Remember the Sabbath (2:1-3); Earth and Breath (2:4-7); Adam, Priest of Eden (2:8-17);  Adam and Eve (2:18-25); Snake-Charmed! (3:1-7); Judgment Day (3:8-19); Justification and Life (3:20-24); Brotherly Love (4:1-16); The Consequences of Cain’s Sin (4:17-26); The Final Word (5); The Disobedient Sons of God (6:1-8); Noah and the Ark (6:9-22); Cosmic Storm Rising (7:1-24); God Remembered Noah (8:1-14);  Be Fruitful and Sacrifice (8:15-22); Be Fruitful, Don’t Murder (9:1-7); God’s Rainbow Covenant with Noah (9:8-17); What Shall We Do With the Drunken Sailor (9:18-29); The City of Man (10); The Babble of Babel (11:1-9); To Abraham (11:10-32); The Call of Abram (12:1-9); Abram Lies (12:10-20); Whose Choice Is Better? (13); Christ, Our Kinsman Redeemer (14:1-16); Christ, the Melchizedekian High Priest (14:17-24); Justification By Faith Alone (15:1-6); The Curse of the Covenant (15:7-21); God Hear and Sees (16); The Incredible Covenant (17:1-14); Sarah’s Resurrection (17:15-27); Abraham, Friend of God (18:1-15); Justice and Prayer (18:16-33); No Way Out (19:1-22); Remember Lot’s Wife (19:23-29); The End of Lot’s Road (19:30-38); Old Wives’ Tales (20); The Lord Visited Sarah (21:1-7); Whose Son Are You? (21:8-21); Promised Land Threatened (21:22-34); The Sacrifice of the Father (22);  A Grave for Sarah (23); A Wife for Isaac (24); The End of the Road (25:1-18); The Purpose of Election (25:19-28); Birthright or Stew? (25:29-34); A Chip Off the Old Block (26:1-33); The Blame Game (26:34-28:9); Christ, Our Ladder (28:10-22); The Boomerang Effect (29:1-30); The War of Mothers (29:31-30:24); God Blesses Jacob (30:25-43); The Great Escape (31); Preparation By Prayer (32:1-21); God Wrestles with Jacob (32:22-32); Reconciliation (33); God’s Triumphant Grace (34); The Repentant Backslider (35); Esau the Great (36); Rejection of the Messiah (37:1-11); Like a Lamb (37:12-36); God’s Amazing Grace (38); Tempted, But Sinless (39); To Dream (40); The Resurrection and Ascension of Joseph (41); True Repentance (42); Real Change (43); Complete Change (44); Providence and Forgiveness (45); To Egypt (46); In Egypt, But Not of Egypt (47);  Famous Last Words 1 (48); Famous Last Words 2 (49:1-12); Famous Last Words 3 (49:13-27); True Forgiveness (49:28-50:26)

About these ads

12 Comments

  1. Todd said,

    December 30, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    I like the baptism of the world sermon a lot.

    But I found this puzzling definition of covenant in it!

    “However, baptism means something. It means that God enters into relationship with people. That relationship is what the word covenant means. Covenant means a lot more than that. But a starting definition of the word is relationship.”

  2. greenbaggins said,

    December 30, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    That definition was made when I was still working out what I thought covenant meant, and was well before all my work on FV. I would probably modify it now. But, at the moment, I will let it stand.

  3. greenbaggins said,

    December 30, 2006 at 5:11 pm

    p.s. Don’t be fooled by the date on the blog entry! It was originally preached in the fall of ’04.

  4. December 30, 2006 at 5:26 pm

    Lane, your definition is fine. Don’t allow your concerns about FV to influence good and godly preaching. Preach the truth. What you have said here is true.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    December 30, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    Well, I would define covenant now as an agreement that is the basis for the relationship rather than as the relationship itself.

  6. December 30, 2006 at 9:15 pm

    Lane, my point is a covenant,aka an agreement, is a type of relationship. I think your letting your concerns about FV to affect your thinking wrongly.

  7. Anne Ivy said,

    December 31, 2006 at 11:27 am

    Do you think it’s a distinction between a chosen, i.e. elective, relationship and one which exists on an a priori basis?

    What I mean is, I didn’t choose my parents. I didn’t choose my siblings. Those relationships exist whether I particularly want them to or not. OTOH, my relationship with my husband was of my choosing. My relationship with my adopted son was of my choosing (and his, too, thinking about it). IOW, a covenant creates a relationship where none existed before, or at least would not exist without the covenant.

  8. greenbaggins said,

    December 31, 2006 at 3:15 pm

    Those great watchwords of the Reformed faith: distinct, yet inseparable. The covenant is distinct from the relationship, yet inseparable from it. The covenant is unilaterally established by God, if that is what you mean, Anne. He initiates with an often unwilling partner.

  9. Anne Ivy said,

    December 31, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    Oh, absolutely, like the bit in Genesis with Abraham deeply asleep as the LORD passes the smoking pot between the sacrificial animal parts, signifying the unilateral covenant He was making. I love that story.

    There’s been some talk floating around of a “covenant” between the Persons of the Trinity, however, and that’s wrong. A covenant does not HAVE to exist. The LORD was under no obligation to enter into a covenant with Abraham and his descendants, after all. But how the Persons of the Trinity could have managed to not be in a relationship with each other beats me.

    Do you see what I mean?

  10. greenbaggins said,

    December 31, 2006 at 4:31 pm

    Usually, Reformed theologians have called the Covenant of Redemption, wherein the Son, before the world was created, undertook to save the elect from damnation (election is part of this, so we’re not changing categories at all). It was a covenant made between the Father and the Son. Reymond has a helpful comment on this (pg. 229 of the 1st edition of his Systematic Theology), where he says actually says that all three members of the Trinity compacted to do each their own part (though of course, the work of each is also the work of all three together) in saving the people of God. This is supported by Eph 1, I deem.

  11. Anne said,

    December 31, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    Alright, but that’s essentially a task-based covenant, isn’t it? As opposed to establishing a relationship between the parties that had not existed prior to the covenant? Did the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit materially change as a result of the Covenant of Redemption?

    I shouldn’t think so.

    If nothing else, we’re apparently in agreement that a relationship is not defined as a covenant; a relationship may be established and created by a covenant, but it is not “a covenant” per se. Right?

  12. greenbaggins said,

    December 31, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    Exactly. Anything that happens among human beings, or between God and human beings cannot exactly correspond to what happens within the Godhead. Obviously, since the covenant of Redemption was created in eternity, there is no before and after with regard to the relationship among the Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption. Both always were from eternity. We cannot fathom that. I believe it is Dabney, though, who helpfully equates the Covenant of Redemption with the decree itself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers

%d bloggers like this: