Well yeah, he should study hard and read commentaries by great reformers and preach and not try to be a theology book explaining every view on every verse or point in every sermon, and why he thinks his is better. Of course, he doesn't have all day.
I'm running the other way though, from the inferences that his sermon is infallible, inerrant, or not to be questioned. I really don't see how that is different from papal infallibility. I thought we all agreed on sola scriptura when it comes to canon. I agree with pergamum's three comments up top.
The quote about a church where the congregation is taught to regard the sermon as God's word and not to be questioned.....how exactly is that not heresy? Or Rome?
Is this just semantics here, when some of you talk about the sermon as being the very word of God? How is extra biblical material in written or spoken form being referred to in that way without cries of heresy erupting? I really don't get it. Only canon is inerrant or infallible or perfect.
I sure hope this is a communication problem and I have a misunderstanding what is meant. If I were questioning my typical American evangelical thinking and considering Reformed theology, and came here and read that, I would think you are all off the wall and go back to Dobson and Rick Warren. Sermons not to be questioned, they are the very word of God on the level of scripture itself....

Bookmarks