Cornerstone Gospel Conference Audio/Video

Tim Brister —  April 21, 2009 — 10 Comments

Over the past couple of days, I have been listening to the audio from Cornerstone Church‘s recent Gospel Conference (Francis Chan is teaching pastor at Cornerstone).  These are some guys you may not be familiar with, but I encourage you to check them out.  The links take you to downloadable MP3’s and MP4’s.

:: Francis Chan | Audio | Video
:: Jeff Vanderstelt 1 | Audio | Video
:: Jeff Vanderstelt 2 | Audio | Video
:: David Fairchild 1 | Audio | Video
:: David Fairchild 2 | Audio | Video

Share Button
Print Friendly
  • http://pdb.homelinux.net Paul B.

    What was the context (audience & purpose) of the conference? I didn’t find anything on the church website about it.

  • Ross

    I listened to the first one by Francis Chan. There was a brief statement of the gospel (Jesus came into the world, died for the sins of the world, and rose again) between 42:45-42:56 in the context of browbeating the people into evangelism (not applying the gospel to them). That was the only gospel I heard in the entire sermon. Most of it sounded like a confusion of law and gospel. The gospel was mostly identified as the “christian life” and care for the poor (at 15:00 and 19:00, etc.). This is a “Gospel” conference?

    Please tell me if I’m wrong about this. It wouldn’t be the first (or last) time.

    • http://timmybrister.wordpress.com/ Timmy Brister

      I haven’t listened to Chan yet, but I have listen to Vanderstelt. Give him a listen and let me know what you think.

      • Ross

        I listened to the first Vanderstelt link. The beginning made me nervous b/c they showed a video of local pastors defining the gospel as a “way of life” (2:30) or displaying the gospel by working together (3:10). They spoke of the “gospel in us” (3:50). Then Vanderstelt came on and preached the biblical gospel (17:20-19:35) which was VERY GOOD. He defined it as the objective reality of Christ’s finished work in his death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins and His perfect LIFE (active obedience) in our place and imputed to us as our righteousness.

        In my opinion, he should have stopped there but instead he went on to talk about the “changed life” (35:20) thus taking our eyes off of Christ and fixing us back on ourselves. He gives the gospel and immediately takes it away by preaching law. If you’re not being changed (overcoming sin), then are you sure you are a child of God? (35:37) Here is what YOU need to do to overcome sin…

        From 19:35 to the end it was kind of a confusing explanation of how to properly “live like Jesus lived”. When unbelievers try to live like Jesus, they insult Him by trying to take his glory for themselves. However, we (believers) can live like Jesus by the power of Jesus (45:00). Huh? Maybe the goal of the “christian life” is to get to the point where we no longer need Jesus and His righteousness imputed to us b/c we’ll be living like Him?

        Why do so many modern preachers feel the need to make the gospel a “means to an end”? The gospel IS the end. Let’s rest in it.

  • http://pdb.homelinux.net Paul B.

    Ross, I thought Jeff was very careful in explaining the living out of the gospel as the fruit of embracing the gospel proclamation all the time. Holy living, the way he explained it, was rooted in living close to the cross, not in moving away from the cross to live out our own righteousness. I thought he was clear in explaining the outworking of the gospel in sanctification exactly the opposite of the way you claim he was leaning (law, independence from Christ). What is the problem with teaching that sanctification follows from the gospel? I guess I’m a bit mystified by your response….

    • Ross

      Paul,

      You may be right. I’m not a preacher or seminary graduate. Are preachers called to preach about the fruit of the gospel or the gospel itself? Maybe both? And is there a difference? Much of the language I heard in the video seemed to confuse the two (“gospel is way of life”, “display the gospel by working together”, “people see the gospel in us”)

      My understanding is:
      Law=imperatives, anything I am required to do (i.e., Love)
      Gospel=indicatives, Christ has already done all I am required to do
      Preachers area called to preach the Law (to believers and unbelievers) to convict of sin and need for a savior and then preach the good news that we are forgiven and righteous in Christ for His sake.

      In my own SBC church, I hear more about the way I should be living than about the truth that Christ lived in my place. Not just in the sermons but especially in the SS material (by Lifeway). Maybe if we clearly heard the gospel preached every Sunday then the fruit (of the SPIRIT) would follow without having to have that process explained to us?

  • Ross

    Tim,

    If you have time, check out Todd Wilken and Issues, Etc:
    http://www.issuesetc.org/ondemand.html

    He’s Lutheran (LCMS) but I think he gives great insights in his sermon reviews. Listen to the latest review on 4/21/09: “A Sermon Preached by Rev. Steven Parks About Doubting Thomas”.

  • http://debbiekaufman.wordpress.com Debbie Kaufman

    Ross: It is about a changed life. That puts our focus on Christ who is the reason we are able to receive God’s grace. I guess I too am wondering what you are getting at.

    • Ross

      Debbie,

      I’m sorry but I don’t understand that. The “changed life” is about me and is subjective. That does not lead us to focus on Christ and His objective work (life, death and resurrection). I’m stuck looking at myself (which is what we sinners like to do anyway, right?). I think Luther was right – the whole gospel is outside of us. Our tendency is to look back to ourselves. This is reinforced in “changed life” preaching which is not helpful in my opinion.

      I’ve been trying to understand the difference b/n the Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the “third use” of the law. Here’s a good article to check out if you have time:
      http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1969

      Excerpt:
      “Reformed theology rightly sees the third use of the law as the ultimate goal for the Christian in this world, but their definition includes self- conscious moral improvement. For Lutherans the law can also be seen as the goal of Christian life, but it must be defined as a completed law that is fulfilled in Christ without threat. Paradoxically, the Christian has no internal evidence or feeling that he is fulfilling the law. Rather than seeing himself progressing towards a greater autonomous holiness, he becomes increasingly aware that he stands coram deo as a sinner. His experiences contradict what he is in God’s eyes. As faith increases, so does the awareness of sin and the sense of unrighteousness. By looking at himself from the position of who he is in Christ, the believer becomes increasingly aware of his miserable condition.”

      • http://www.wired4truth.info Douglas K. Adu-Boahen

        I fail to see how this quasi-Lutheran idea of dividing the counsel of God between indicatives and imperatives is even Biblical. There are numerous imperatives given in the NT – should we shelve those?