The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Experimental Preaching Institute.

I'm going to stick my neck on the proverbial "chopping block" and say that it is very possible to violate Scripture by bringing Christ explicitly into every sermon.

Why? Because if we truly hold to the inspiration of the Bible, and that each and every word was written for a specific purpose, then it is actually contradictory to bring Christ into many passages of Scripture. Yes, the revelation of God is just that, it reveals "God" and His redemption in Christ. There is, however, much more to salvation than repenting of your sins and trusting in Christ unto justification. And yes, Christ Jesus is also our sanctification (1Cor 1:30) yet it is our responsibility to live out the details of what our sanctification entails. What I'm objecting to preachers who, after every sermon, regardless of the passage being preached on, if in fact they even expound a text in its proper context, will at the end of every sermon, make a call to believe on Christ in order to be saved.

There are passages of Scripture where salvation is enjoined upon unbelievers. And these, being part of the inspired biblical record, should be preached. But the majority of Scripture is directed to believers; those who have already come to Christ, having been given a new nature by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. Their most pressing need is the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new. It is here that I think preachers need to focus their efforts; e.g., encouraging those who are discouraged, weary and beaten down from being in the world with its myriad temptation. The sheep need the whole counsel of God if they are to live a godly and balanced life.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV) "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

It is also true that the Lord Christ is to be our example, the perfection of all that we are to be to in Whose image we are to be conformed; yea to even be partakers of the divine nature. (2Pet 1:4) Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by simply pointing to the book of Esther. One of the reasons why this particular book caused so much controversy when it came to determining which books were to be included in the Canon, was that there is no mention of God to be found in Esther. Maybe some of you were not aware of this interesting fact? So, how is one to understand that book without even the name of God being found in it? I would suggest that the author of Esther was inspired to produce a "literary painting" . . . where God is the "canvas" upon which the "colors" of the story are penned. In other words, the LORD God was behind all that happened and it was He Who was by His providence bringing all that happened to pass. In very simple terms, in the book of Esther, God is "assumed". The writer was obviously a Presuppositionalist!

To summarize, my objection is using Christ as an "addon" to satisfy a view that believe if the name of Christ isn't mentioned in every sermon, then it isn't acceptable or "Christological". I believe we should be faithful to the text and context of every passage of Scripture. And in doing so, then we are honoring God most, upholding the doctrine of divine inspiration, and allowing the Spirit to work as He should in and through the proper exposition of the Word.

In His Grace,