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

I feel I have sufficiently explained my position on "tacking on Christ" in every sermon, which can be nothing more than "eisogesis". Or is sometimes a desire to give the appearance of holding to "Christological" preaching; a neat new term that has been introduced that challenges the traditional "Grammatico-Historico" hermeneutic. It does indeed grab the attention. But I believe it is fallacious. After all, who wants to be accused of not preaching "Christologically"? It's similar to the psychological advantage the Arminians are known to use in regard to the doctrine of "Limited Atonement". It sounds so much more appealing to say you hold to an "Unlimited Atonement" rather than one that is "Limited". Yes, such ploys are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Of course, some of us have seized the opportunity to turn the tables and say we believe in a "Definite Atonement". Now, if one opposes this doctrine of Definite Atonement do they really want to say that they hold to an "Indefinite Atonement"?

Anyway, I digress. All I am saying is that we should be faithful to the doctrine of Inspiration and preach the Bible in context and preach it in accord with its intended purpose. To make my final point I would direct your attention to the Lord Jesus Christ and His use of the Scriptures.

And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Lk 24:27; cf. Matt 28:19, 20)

I think one would be hard pressed to show that the Lord Christ interpreted every single verse contained in the Old Testament as pointing to Himself. And the apostle Paul was of a similar mind when he declared that he preached the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). I am opposed to what you have termed "moralizing" sermons, no less than you. But I am equally opposed to using Christ's name vainly.

In His Grace,