Does a Pastor HAVE to take a stand on election/predestination in sermons?

A Preaching/Teaching Pastor has to be first of all faithful to the Word. When this happens, he has no choice but to faithfully expound on unconditional election.

 

Like you always say...God is love.

:saint: :flower: :flower: :saint:

 

Indeed...

One is to preach the whole Bible, and not skip some verses. I have sat waiting for weeks to see what a pastor will say when they get to a passage, only to have them jump over it. What do they fear? Is God not the God of the Bible? Why not preacher what it says?

If nothing else at lease say you don't know how you believe on part of the book, but do not hide from it.

 

Wherever one reads about Election, God is the sole actor. There's nothing a person does to bring it about (1 Thess 1:4).

 

Now, THAT is funny stuff :laugh:

You aught to put that in the Jokes of the NT thread.

 

I agree with you, but how do you know he was 'hidding from it'?

I haven't known any to fear anything in scripture but preach it without reservation. That is not to say there aren't some but most enjoy preaching the full counsil of God with due regard for every verse. I personally and VERY fond if it and in fact love to preach and teach verse by verse.

 

Of Course God is the sole actor since it was God who determined the how and therefore the whom will be the elect.
It is of faith that it might be by grace.

I agree, there is nothing a person does to bring it about, because one can not make ones self elect. You either are or you are not.

 

since it was I in the church, and each passage that talked of election was jumped, and because I called him on it once, i therefore say he hid from such passages

 

I was just curious. Sad that it happened, but the fact is that some don't know enough about it to try to teach or preach intelligently on it. And I know that between the C and A debates the term 'intelligently' is a very subjective :laugh:

 

Sad, indeed.

Many Reform pastors never touch the book of The Revelation.

And to be fair, many other pastors will condemn Calvinism from the pulpit -- Rogers and Gaines at my own church. Their point, I believe, is that the passages Calvinism uses to teach the saving gospel were never intended as such by their authors. One cannot even compare the gospel spoken of in Acts 2:38-40 with the "gospel" isogeted by Calvinists from Eph 1:4-6.

If Acts 2:38-40 was the "game" -- Eph 1:4-6 is the postgame "highlight reel."

Acts 2:38-40 is how to get saved -- Eph 1:4-6 is about the post-salvation purpose of that salvation.

Ephesians is Paul's epistle telling about the "scope (1:12-23), hope (2:1-3:21), riches (4:1-5:33), and power (6:1-24)"* of the salvation we already have. It is not intended to convert anybody.

Acts 2 (or 1Cor 15:1-4, etal.) presents the gospel of our salvation. Let's don't "get the cart before the horse."

skypair

*Dr Rogers