Preaching with Absolute Authority
Reprinted from The Carolina Messenger, August 2003
David R. Pharr

One impact of television and radio is that many people believe very little of what they hear.  This is especially true as regards advertising.  We are continually being told that a certain product is the best, followed by another huckster that says his product is better.  We are unlikely to believe that a certain toothpaste, deodorant, or laundry detergent is going to bring success and happiness to our lives, no matter how sincere and certain the spokesman seems.  Commercials may have subliminal effects, but most of us rarely take these messages at face value.  We are a society that of necessity must be skeptical.  We do not believe everything that we are told.

It may be that many who listen to preaching do so with much the same detachment and dubiousness with which they tolerate commercials.  I am not referring to the practice of testing doctrines by the Scriptures, which ought to be done (I Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11).  Rather our concern is with the tendency to subconsciously dismiss preaching as little more than one man's opinion, or maybe just the claims of the "sponsor" (the church).

If there is any place that ought to deal with absolutes, it is the pulpit.  The one place where people ought to expect certainties is in gospel sermons.  Most of what is being communicated in the world is without authority.  The girl in the toothpaste commercial cannot back her assertions with any real authority.  But preachers can and must deliver an authoritative message.  "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15).

What makes preaching authoritative?  The Bible.  A sermon is as valid as it is biblical; it is as certain as it is scriptural; it is as absolute as it is "Thus saith the Lord."

Certainly a message's scripturalness is not determined by how many or how few texts are cited in it.  We have heard solid and helpful discourses developed from just a few words of text.  There also have been speeches crammed full of passages which were little more than a presentation of the preacher's prejudices.  Since, however, the only message with authority is the Bible's message, it ought always to be made clear that, "This is what God's word teaches."  Why would any man of God not delight in confirming what he says with citations of Scripture?

We hear criticism of "proof text preaching."  If what is being criticized is the practice of using texts out of context, of misapplying passages, or of just throwing in numerous passages in hopes of camouflaging a lack of meaningful study, then such ought to be criticized.  On the other hand, we are bound to commend a preacher who conscientiously shows the congregation that everything he teaches can be found in the Bible.  It is a foolish sophistication that thinks it is outmoded or unintellectual to frequently cite the Bible.  It is not enough to say that preaching ought to be primarily biblical, it ought to be altogether biblical.  Sermons are enriched by the use of Scripture, they are impoverished by their absence.

Two things are accomplished by the meaningful use of the Bible as the basis and framework of every sermon.

First, proving everything by the Bible inspires appreciation for the authority of the Scriptures.  A preacher owes it to the people to show them that he has complete confidence in the sacred Book.  The more he demonstrates this by appealing to the Bible for proof, the more they will be encouraged to have the same confidence.

Secondly, it is only when it is affirmed by the Bible that people can know that a proposition is true.  One may speak eloquently, learnedly, and persuasively, but there is no authority in what he says unless it is backed by Divine truth.  People need an authoritative message.  They deserve to be told what is right and to be shown that they can know it is right because it is what the Bible teaches.

Some preachers give more attention to quoting men than to quoting God.  Sermons cite authors, philosophers, psychologists, and theologians as "authorities" on various issues.  There is a place for quoting men for purposes of illustration or to show a more effective way of expressing some truth.  But the problem with citing them as "authorities" is that they have no authority.  It would be radical to assume that a preacher is questionable simply because he quotes from various authors.  We are, however, somewhat astonished when sermons are marked more by discussions of what men have said than by references to the truth of the Lord.  Advertisers often try to convince the public by using the testimony of movie stars and famous athletes.  But how is a baseball star an authority on the right toothpaste?  And why should we be convinced of any spiritual truth simply because some theologian says so?

Of course many people do not like Bible preaching.  They are "turned off" by sermons that are heavy with Scripture.  Many do not want to hear much that sounds absolute.  Clear Bible preaching will often drive such away.  But what value is there in giving them an alternative to get them to stay?  Are we so naive, so weak in our convictions, that we think one can be saved who is not convinced by the Bible and who does not rejoice in hearing the Bible?  We should want to see the church grow, but preachers need to come back to the reality that it is not our job to bring in and hold large attendances; it is our job to "preach the word" (II Tim. 4:2).

As an example, consider that the Bible teaches some things regarding parental duties in rearing children.  These things ought to be taught.  One might cite child psychologists, or other "experts," to illustrate what the Bible teaches, or to show how the Bible's principles have been demonstrated in practical experience.  But we should never cite such as "authorities" which confirm the Bible.  (An equal number of such "authorities" could, of course, be cited to contradict the Bible.)  I have no problem with a preacher showing that "experts" agree with Scripture, but I am offended with any implication that the Bible is right because it agrees with the "experts."

Again, let us be clear that a sermon may be biblical even though there are few texts cited in it.  A preacher might ask himself, however, how his sermons are being perceived.  It is not unusual to hear complaints that sermons have little scriptural content.  It might be defended that the Bible is in it even though book, chapter and verse are not given.  The question, however, is how are such sermons perceived.  I am reminded of how someone defended a broadcast which was supposed to be evangelistic:  "If you listen carefully you can hear the plan of salvation in every program."  But that is the point:  If one has to "listen carefully" to hear that a sermon is Bible based, it probably is not so perceived by most people.

Paul wrote, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ" (Rom. 1:16).  Can we dare to be ashamed?  Dare we to be ashamed to preach that gospel right out of God's Book?  Are we embarrassed to read and quote Scripture?  Are we uncomfortable with giving book, chapter and verse references?

"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (I Pet. 4:11).

Back to Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword