Hi Pilgrim,
I would like to get back to this point a little more.
Pilgrim said: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. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" />
First of all, what eactly do you mean by "explicitly"? Does you mean that depending on the scripture passage, Christ's name should not be mentioned at all during the 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.
Personally, I don't have any problem with a preacher putting forth a short call at the end of each sermon to "believe in Christ". But, if this is the only way that Christ shows up in the sermon, then I think that it's possible that the sermon wasn't preached faithfully. For example, maybe the sermon is on an OT passage that has to do with living according to God's law. Now, it's perfectly fine to expound this passage by showing how that should work out in a Christian's life and how these are God's laws and they should be obeyed, but without bringing Christ into the picture it's just moralism in my opinion. If you explain an OT passage containing one of God's commands as being God's law and should be obeyed and leave it at that, do you really think this is a good thing? I agree with you that it is our resposibility to live out the details of what our sanctification entails and a sermon can focus on that very well and be good, but if Christ and the Gospel aren't brought in as the power and the motivation behind doing it, then I think that's a pretty empty sermon.
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.
I agree with everything here. When I stated that Christ should be preached faithfully in every sermon in my original post, I was not trying to imply that this meant every sermon's point should be a plea to the non-Christian's in the audience to accept Christ. I've been in churches before where every week the sermon was always aimed at non-Christians, and all I can say is that for a believer, those sermons grow old fast and are very empty. But again, in answering your point that "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," how does one go about doing this without mentioning Christ at all? Do you say, it's because God loves you and stop at that? Many other religions say that. Where does the power and desire to resist temptation come from? Is it because God commands we don't sin and if we do we will go to Hell? Is that all. My point is, I honestly don't see how you can have a sermon in which Christ is left out completely and call it Christianity.
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? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> 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! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
But even in Esther which doesn't mention God at all, what would you say if the preacher preached a sermon on Esther and didn't mention God at all. I think that would be wrong. Even though Esther doesn't mention God, as you so rightly point out "God is the 'canvas'" of the story. We would both agree that God is in every part of Esther. The Israelites are sinners just like us. Without a mediator between them and God, God's wrath would come down on them as well. My point is that Christ is in this book also. On what basis does God show so much mercy to the Israelites. Even here, Esther is looking towards Christ's salvation. So I don't think it's inappropriate or artificial to bring Christ in to a sermon on Esther.
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.
I agree that if Christ is just used as an "addon" so that his name is mentioned in the sermon, then this is not the appropriate exposition of the text. But, I just cannot get over the idea that it is acceptable to leave Christ out entirely. To me a sermon without Christ is empty. Even if all the points are excellent and the application good, without Christ as the basis it lacks any power for change in my opinion, except the power of "doing it yourself". Or, as one of my former pastors used to say, "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps".
I would add that I have heard many sermons where Christ's name is peppered throughout the sermon but still felt that Christ was not being faithfully preached.
John
