Thread: Pastor too dogmatic over his own interpretation?

Last Sunday, I was a bit surprised in listening to the sermon about God's revealed will that my pastor interpreted the passage in 1 Timothy 2:4 to be referring to God's revealed will that all men be saved.

This is one of the passages that I studied extensively when I first became a Calvinist because it is often misused by Arminians as a prooftext for God's universal saving love. I found that Reformed theologians are divided over the meaning of this passage, where the high calvinists like John Owen and John Gill interpret it to be referring to God's will of purpose to save all sorts of people who are no other than the elects, and the low calvinists like Spurgeon and Matthew Henry who interpret the passage to mean that God desires to save everybody in a general sense, hence his revealed will.

While I do believe it is the responsibility and calling of a pastor to teach the congregation and expound on the word, I think there needs to be some openness in regards to those issues and passages that good theologians/pastors may disagree over, and not to push one view as being the only true and acceptable one. While I happen to be the kind of guy who really hates arguing, (especially with a pastor), I was wondering what some of you guys think about this. Should a pastor only teach and promote his own interpretations so long as he is confident about them, or should he be more lenient where he knows to be differences in exegesis within the Reformed Faith?

I agree. A congregation often adopts not only the theology but also the attitudes of a pastor.

I have some some more fundy churches ready to lynch folks ever minor disagreements. Admitting that good people hold to different views and that the issues are sometimes not so black and white as we would like them goes a long way in humbling people.

I guess it is a question of whether you see the sermon to be a lecture in a university class or one of inspiration by one of God's messengers. Should a pastor be delivering a seminary lecture while at the lecturn or a Spirit guided message? I believe the latter.

Remember: the bible is infallible, but we are not. Even Spirit-guided men need to be honest that on many issues there are good men on either side. To tell the congregation this might be to spur them into further self-research and to be Bereans.

Unresponsive. Should a pastor be delivering a seminary lecture while at the lecturn or a Spirit guided message?

If he is confident and teaching within the bounds of accepted doctrine (you plainly point out that good men are on both sides), then I see no problem with him promoting his view.

Not that it is by any means a measure of how things should be done in the local church, but this sort of thing goes on constantly on the PB (i.e. pedo vs credo baptism; EP vs non-EP; etc.). And I believe that all sides will, for the most part agree, that we are both edified and spurred on to personal study when when interact with someone with an opposing view. Iron does sharpen iron.

I am not discussing matters related to discussion forums. Instead, I assume the topic is related to the sermon delivered by a pastor, who was installed after careful prayer and examination by the session and presbytery. The OP suggests (to me) that the sermon should be nothing more than a seminary lecture. I respectfully disagree.

Sorry, Patrick, I wasn't interacting with your post, but rather the OP.

However, I certainly believe a sermon to be more than a seminary lecture. But I also would not believe every word/teaching delivered by a pastor to be inspired (as I understand your use of the word within this context). What if he is clearly teaching error? Pergie makes a valid point. We are encouraged to be like the Bereans and study out all teaching for ourselves.

Without getting too side-tracked, I think that what Patrick is saying that in the preaching of God's Holy Word, the Pastor must depend upon the Holy Spirit to convince him of the meaning and interpretation of the passage. When this occurs through study and prayer, and the pastor comes to a conviction of the meaning, he is quite justified in being 'dogmatic' in his preaching.

Patrick, am I reading you correctly?

Of course, the problem is when we have two men who both endeavor to depend upon the Holy Spirit in their study and preparation, who come to opposite interpretations. What, then, should we say?

I believe that is the tension that Jean-David has introduced in his original post.

If I didn't firmly believe what I was preaching, I should go sit in the pew.

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Should a pastor only teach and promote his own interpretations so long as he is confident about them, or should he be more lenient where he knows to be differences in exegesis within the Reformed Faith?

Well it depends on what you mean by promoting his own interpretations. Basically whenever we say the scriptures mean something we have technically promoted a position and its hard for a pastor not to take a position. However, disagreement between Christians can be a common thing and as long as each side is respectful and not venturing into heresy then it can be ok to disagree at times.

Be careful though, unfortunately there are a few pastors out there who really do get overly defensive when questioned about anything, even non-theological topics.

Originally Posted by Whitefield

If I didn't firmly believe what I was preaching, I should go sit in the pew.

That is not entirely true.

Sure, on major issues dealing with soteriology, we need to have an answer.

but if a pastor preaches through any book, he is bound to come to a multitude of issues where he is unsure of just what exactly is meant. And on a number of issues, a pastor may find himself leaning towards a minority view, whereas others see the same issue in another way.

I think it is good to be honest with your people and lay things out for them. If you are too dogmatic, you actually ruin your credibility rather than enhancing it.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

I am not discussing matters related to discussion forums. Instead, I assume the topic is related to the sermon delivered by a pastor, who was installed after careful prayer and examination by the session and presbytery. The OP suggests (to me) that the sermon should be nothing more than a seminary lecture. I respectfully disagree.

Of course, there is big difference between a sermon and a seminary lecture. At my church, the pastor is indeed perceived by the congregation as delivering God's Word to the people. The congregation is taught not to question what the pastor preaches but to accept it as a message from God. There are elders that sit in the two front pews and are responsible to ensure that the message being preached is in conformity with the Confessions of the church. If the pastor were to say something that is in disagreement with the Three Forms of Unity, they would challenge him and ask for further explanations.

I generally try to receive the sermon as a whole, without stumbling over semantics or little intrepretations here and there that I may be unsure about. It really comes down to the way we approach the Bible. There may be details here and there that we are not sure how they fit squarely, but the whole is well articulated and is a workable and robust system.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Whitefield

If I didn't firmly believe what I was preaching, I should go sit in the pew.

That is not entirely true.

Sure, on major issues dealing with soteriology, we need to have an answer.

but if a pastor preaches through any book, he is bound to come to a multitude of issues where he is unsure of just what exactly is meant. And on a number of issues, a pastor may find himself leaning towards a minority view, whereas others see the same issue in another way.

I think it is good to be honest with your people and lay things out for them. If you are too dogmatic, you actually ruin your credibility rather than enhancing it.

Actually I agree, on minor points. However a text like the one in the OP is so critical, that I better spend more hours in study and be able to formulate a clear and convincing argument for its meaning. To stand in front of the people and confuse them with .... All means each and ever and maybe it means of All kinds ... would be shirking my duties, and leave them open to an erroneous Arminian interpretation. But I see no harm in telling the people that the Epistle to the Ephesians might have been a singular letter to them or it might have been a circular letter to them and other churches in their area.

So one's interpretation of the Sabbath can't be proclaimed from the pulpit. One's eschatological interpretation of various passages can't be proclaimed either. No issue on which there is disagreement can be proclaimed with authority. What you are asking for is, in fact, a lecture. Filling you in on the various ways a passage has been interpreted is not the purpose of preaching.

Ed Clowney (Practical theology) at WTS used to warn his future preachers(no, I wasn't one of them, I'm patriarchal!) very carefully about the solemn responsibility of not adding to scripture and binding people's consciences beyond the CLEARLY revealed word of God. One guy in hub's homiletics class did a magnificent practice sermon about memorizing scripture that the class thought was just great, and Clowney tore it to shreds because of the way he added to scripture, no matter how wise his insights on aids to meditating on the Word were. You have to be so careful not to add to the Word.


Of course, there is big difference between a sermon and a seminary lecture. At my church, the pastor is indeed perceived by the congregation as delivering God's Word to the people. The congregation is taught not to question what the pastor preaches but to accept it as a message from God.

This seems horrendous. Infallible? In light of something like Frame's "Machen's Warrior Children" (Machen’s Warrior Children) it seems almost insane. Reminds me of the charismatic prophets with a "word" that can't be questioned.

From 1923 to the present, the movement begun by J. Gresham Machen and Westminster Theological Seminary has supplied the theological leadership for the conservative evangelical Reformed Christians in the United States. Under that leadership, conservative Calvinists made a strong stand against liberal theology. But having lost that theological battle in the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., they turned inward to battle among themselves about issues less important—in some cases, far less important—than liberalism. This essay describes 21 of these issues, with some subdivisions, and offers some brief analysis and evaluations.

If my pastor did not openly acknowledge the many, many, debates in Reformed theology even while focusing on and preaching the wonderful gospel of grace, I would run the other way as fast as I can. And if we did not feel free to ask him a question about what he preached, and if he did not indeed even humbly tell people that he knew he was a fallen human capable of going off, and wanted feedback if anybody ever thought he was erring, I would run the other way.

Thank God for preachers who study, read, pray and devote themselves to the minstry of the word, even while recognizing that great preachers and great theologians past and present do not always agree. To regard a sermon as unquestionable seem to be like deception at best, and worse as possibly arrogant abuse of authority.

Unresponsive. Should a pastor be delivering a seminary lecture while at the lecturn or a Spirit guided message?
__________________

That is a little too black and white. There is much spirit led information in a seminary lecture. If seminary lectures did not matter, then why do pastors go? A pastor can explain difficult passages and how others interpreted things previously within his sermon. I have heard Spurgeon do this many times, and he is far from a seminary lecture. And this can be done without remaining aloof on the issue.

Originally Posted by Neogillist

Last Sunday, I was a bit surprised in listening to the sermon about God's revealed will that my pastor interpreted the passage in 1 Timothy 2:4 to be referring to God's revealed will that all men be saved.

This is one of the passages that I studied extensively when I first became a Calvinist because it is often misused by Arminians as a prooftext for God's universal saving love. I found that Reformed theologians are divided over the meaning of this passage, where the high calvinists like John Owen and John Gill interpret it to be referring to God's will of purpose to save all sorts of people who are no other than the elects, and the low calvinists like Spurgeon and Matthew Henry who interpret the passage to mean that God desires to save everybody in a general sense, hence his revealed will.

While I do believe it is the responsibility and calling of a pastor to teach the congregation and expound on the word, I think there needs to be some openness in regards to those issues and passages that good theologians/pastors may disagree over, and not to push one view as being the only true and acceptable one. While I happen to be the kind of guy who really hates arguing, (especially with a pastor), I was wondering what some of you guys think about this. Should a pastor only teach and promote his own interpretations so long as he is confident about them, or should he be more lenient where he knows to be differences in exegesis within the Reformed Faith?

A pastor could bring up the fact that Reformed theologians are divided over the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:4, but it is not enough to say that. If he believes that 1 Timothy 2:4 is talking about all of the elect, then he should say that. He could explain why other interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4 are false.

Originally Posted by Neogillist

At my church, the pastor is indeed perceived by the congregation as delivering God's Word to the people. The congregation is taught not to question what the pastor preaches but to accept it as a message from God.

That's terrible. Jim Jones used to run a ministry like that.

There are elders that sit in the two front pews and are responsible to ensure that the message being preached is in conformity with the Confessions of the church.

That helps a little bit. But who trained the elders?

Frankly, if I'm just going to accept whatever I hear from the pulpit, I might as well go to Rome.

Originally Posted by Tim

Of course, the problem is when we have two men who both endeavor to depend upon the Holy Spirit in their study and preparation, who come to opposite interpretations. What, then, should we say?

Construct two pulpits at the front of your church and have a "dueling pulpits" time in worship.

Construct two pulpits at the front of your church and have a "dueling pulpits" time in worship.

Originally Posted by Tim

Without getting too side-tracked, I think that what Patrick is saying that in the preaching of God's Holy Word, the Pastor must depend upon the Holy Spirit to convince him of the meaning and interpretation of the passage. When this occurs through study and prayer, and the pastor comes to a conviction of the meaning, he is quite justified in being 'dogmatic' in his preaching.

Patrick, am I reading you correctly?

Yes, you are. And I would add that to expect a pastor to spend time expounding on every disagreement in this or that passage, bible translation, etc., in the course of delivering God's Message on the Sabbath, is misunderstanding what "preaching the Word" means.

Some have intimated that they fully expect the pastor to outline major disagreements in the course of their sermon. Some have went so far as to claim that they would run the other way if the pastor did not do this.

Sigh.

Some have intimated that they fully expect the pastor to outline major disagreements in the course of their sermon. Some have went so far as to claim that they would run the other way if the pastor did not do this.

Sigh.

If virtually every Reformed theologian agrees on something (5 points, paedo baptism, covenant theology instead of dispensationalism) of course the pastor has the right and responsibility to teach the flock in that way.

Is it honest and right to teach something that there has been major disgreement on within the Reformed community in the same way, and then even go so far as tell your people that they should receive it as the Holy Spirit talking canon through the pastor?

If you cannot question it, it is canon, right? Inerrant?

Isn't it honest to at least mention in one single sentence or phrase that Person xxxxx ( Calvin, Edwards, Murray, Van Til) had a different view?

Sabbath, apologetics, incomprehensibility, eschatology, EP and worship.....the list goes on and on.

I'm still running The dogmatic pastor sounds like the type who is afraid to let folks know there are differing views, with faith that truth, in the end, will win out. I thank God our pastor isn't afraid to have us all discuss the debates WITHIN the Reformed community ( I don't mean opening the door to arminianism or other garbage).

I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't share with you the various differences of opinion. But if, after study and prayer, he has come to a studied position, does he owe it to you? Is that part of what a sermon is?

IMHO the ministry of the word is not so much about filling you in on the various interpretations that are out there as explaining and applying the text to the best of his Spirit-aided ability. He might include alternative views, but I don't thing he has to.

The last thing any pastor should be doing is a "four views on the end times" or "five views on church government" kind of message-giving. His role is to declare God's Word and expound it given his giftedness and his study. He will humbly but firmly declare what he believes the passage at hand teaches, and apply it to his flock - knowing full well that he is responsible before God for what he teaches. He cannot be expected to go up there namby-pamby and never make definitive claims about what the passages teaches... that's not being a pastor to his flock.

Now - as Josh has alraedy noted, as to the initial situation which prompted this thread... it should be taken privately to the pastor and not aired out here. I'm glad we've gotten away from and stayed away from any specifics, because it's really not appropriate to be discussing a private case here. Let's keep it that way.

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....

Originally Posted by lynnie

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?

Let me defend the Bishop of Rome here. The Pope only claims to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra, not every time he delivers a sermon. So some of the comments up thread actually strike me as being worse than Rome.

Originally Posted by lynnie

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....

A pastor should only teach what he believes the Word of God says. By necessity, then, this means he's going to do the hard work of studying the passage and declaring to his flock what he believes is the proper interpretation. Where there might be some controversy within the reformed community about it, he probably should make some note of the fact that others disagree with him, but there is NO getting around the fact that the pastor should be clear on what he's presenting, and clear that it is what he honestly believes is the correct view of the passage he's preaching on. This isn't saying the pastor is infallible in ANY way. He should invite questions that are Scripturally grounded, and be willing to discuss such passages with those interested - but nevertheless, his weighty responsibility is to declare God's word... and to maintain that Scripture is univocal. He should humbly admit the possibility of error, but steadfastly maintain that he is speaking what he believes is truth. There is no place for wishy-washiness in the pulpit.

Think of how long a sermon on eschatology would be if the pastor compared and contrasted all the views within the Reformed community.

indeed! And, frankly, how irresponsible that would be.

Originally Posted by lynnie

Thank God for preachers who study, read, pray and devote themselves to the minstry of the word

-----Added 4/24/2009 at 10:36:40 EST-----

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

There is no place for wishy-washiness in the pulpit.

'nuf said.

This isn't saying the pastor is infallible in ANY way. He should invite questions that are Scripturally grounded, and be willing to discuss such passages with those interested - but nevertheless, his weighty responsibility is to declare God's word... and to maintain that Scripture is univocal. He should humbly admit the possibility of error, but steadfastly maintain that he is speaking what he believes is truth. There is no place for wishy-washiness in the pulpit.

Very well articulated. Amen and thank you.

Edward....my husband cracked up laughing when I told him your reply..... Says he needs to remember that line

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by lynnie

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?

Let me defend the Bishop of Rome here. The Pope only claims to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra, not every time he delivers a sermon. So some of the comments up thread actually strike me as being worse than Rome.

I have been thinking about this very issue. I have reading a book, Called to Serve, and in that book Michael Horton has an essay. He says this:

"The chief means of graces is the preached word. A sermon is not only an exposition of God's Word but is itself God's Word. It is the son of man preaching life into the valley of dead bones, wielding the two-edged sword that kills and makes alive. It is the Holy Spirit alone who is the effectual cause of the word's work, but it adminstered through preaching."

I was taken aback when I read that. How is what the preacher preaches more than an exposition of Scripture where it becomes God's Word?

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by lynnie

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?

Let me defend the Bishop of Rome here. The Pope only claims to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra, not every time he delivers a sermon. So some of the comments up thread actually strike me as being worse than Rome.

I have been thinking about this very issue. I have reading a book, Called to Serve, and in that book Michael Horton has an essay. He says this:

"The chief means of graces is the preached word. A sermon is not only an exposition of God's Word but is itself God's Word. It is the son of man preaching life into the valley of dead bones, wielding the two-edged sword that kills and makes alive. It is the Holy Spirit alone who is the effectual cause of the word's work, but it adminstered through preaching."

I was taken aback when I read that. How is what the preacher preaches more than an exposition of Scripture where it becomes God's Word?

Horton isn't alone in that statement. Calvin says the same:

“We may therefore gather from these words that the Church is not to be ruled by the outward preaching of God's word as though God had substituted men in his own place, and thus divested himself of his own office, but that he only speaks by their mouth. (Comm, Haggai 1:12)”

"Because they know his voice. Though he speaks here of ministers, yet, instead of wishing that they should be heard, he wishes that God should be heard speaking by them; for we must attend to the distinction that he has laid down, that he alone is a faithful pastor or shepherd of the Church who conducts and governs his sheep by the direction of Christ. We must attend to the reason why it is said that the sheep follow; it is, because they know how to distinguish the shepherds from wolves by the voice." (Comm, John 10:4)

As does William Gouge in his commentary on Hebrews 13:7:

The subject matter to be preached is here called "the word of God." Although that which is spoken by ministers is only the sound of a man's voice, yet that which true ministers of God preach in exercising their ministerial function is the word of God. Thus it is said of the apostles, "They spoke the word of God," Acts 4:31, and it is said of the people of Antioch, that "almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God," Acts 13:44.

And furthermore, this is confessional: So therefore does say the Westminster Larger Catechism Q160:

Q. 160. What is required of those that hear the Word preached?
A. It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence,preparation, and prayer; examine what they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

and the 2nd Helvetic Confession in Chapter 1:

Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

I have been thinking about this very issue. I have reading a book, Called to Serve, and in that book Michael Horton has an essay. He says this:

"The chief means of graces is the preached word. A sermon is not only an exposition of God's Word but is itself God's Word. It is the son of man preaching life into the valley of dead bones, wielding the two-edged sword that kills and makes alive. It is the Holy Spirit alone who is the effectual cause of the word's work, but it adminstered through preaching."

I was taken aback when I read that. How is what the preacher preaches more than an exposition of Scripture where it becomes God's Word?

I'm usually a fan of Horton's writing. I probably need to add that book to my list of things to read to see if he convinces me.

There is so much bad theology being preached these days, that I believe all sermons should be heard with discernment.

And I've tried to be careful on this thread to speak only on general principles. I might be more clear in my points if I were to use specific examples, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate to do so here.

-----Added 4/25/2009 at 12:01:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

As does William Gouge in his commentary on Hebrews 13:7:

And furthermore, this is confessional: So therefore does say the Westminster Larger Catechism Q160:

Q. 160. What is required of those that hear the Word preached?
A. It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence,preparation, and prayer; examine what they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

Yes! I should have turned to the Confessions initially, since it says it much more artfully than did I. "...(E)xamine what they hear by the Scriptures..."

Just as the fact that there are many bad marriages out there does not discount the fact that a sound marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church to the world, so is the fact that there is much bad theology being preached not denigrative of the fact that a faithful pastor's preaching of the Word of God is to be heard as God's Word to his flock.

When there is mist in the pulpit, there is fog in the pews.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

When there is mist in the pulpit, there is fog in the pews.

That's nice rhetoric (and rhetoric only).


If a pastor is preaching on eschatology with undue dogmatism and then the person in the pew thinks that thisis the only way things could be interpreted, you are doing a dishonor to that person in the pew.

A simple preface, such as telling the congregation that this is not a central issue, and telling your people that others disagree is enough (even others in the "reformed" camp disagree). It is simply being honest with your people.

There is no need to give a "Four Views" view and I think you all are just saying that for rhetorical purposes to try to make your point.

When God whispers, we should whisper, and when God shouts, we should shout.

On issues like justification by faith alone, we have sufficient warrant to be dogmatic, when we are preaching through the book fo Revealtion and stipudly make grand pronouncements of what things definitey are, we are misleading the congregation. We actually hurt our credibility.


If Peter said that some things in Paul's wiritngs were difficult to understand and we are not willing to admit this, this is the height of arrogance.

Yes, there is ALWAYS a little mist in the pulpit and a little fog in the pew - that is because we cannotknow for sure about all minor topics, and many in our churches are split on thesetopics too. I think we are called to be honest and say simply, "The commentators vary here, but I prefer this view..." or "good men differon this topic, check it out for yourself, but I will expalin my view..." That is enough.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I think we are called to be honest and say simply, "The commentators vary here, but I prefer this view..." or "good men differon this topic, check it out for yourself, but I will expalin my view..." That is enough.

Respectfully, I disagree. As a pastor I am called to deliver a message guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit guides me to delve into this or that commenator's differences, I would do so. If not, I do not. Very rarely have I been guided to spend time outlining differences of opinion. Generally, these sort of things are reserved for Sunday School classes, Q&A open sessions, or private discussions with the brethren.

You seem to be dictating that the Spirit would always dictate a discourse on the varying differences between commentators. You go too far here, no?

Lastly, what is your interpretation of "undue dogmatism" with respect to echatology? Should i go against my Confessional views, delving into all manner of dispensationalist commentary, too? Etc. It appears you have a firm view of what such a sermon should comprise and if said sermon did not contain the elements you have presupposed, then said sermon is dogmatic (however you define the term). What are the essential elements of a sermon based on eschatology, then, to you?

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11

I respect a preacher for preaching his conviction, but there is no doubt we are to check up on what the preacher is preaching. He should expect as much and encourage it. But I am reluctant to read this as saying they searched the various commentaries that were discussed.