Here is a thought. Maybe it is actually more arrogant to NOT preach. I ask you what reeks of arrogance? Humbly attempting to unveil and make clear the very revealed words of God to a people, and standing behind his authority, all the while knowing that where you err at precisely that point you have no authority. Or is it more arrogant to sit in a roundtable and "discuss" your ideas about who God is and what He has revealed? Is it more arrogant to stand before God's people and converse without much conviction? Or is it more arrogant to stand before God's people and proclaim with conviction? I personally think the former is the most arrogant. It is rooted in self-confidence and a lack of trusting in the power of God. Brothers let us preach the word with authority and not timidity!
But there's no give-and-take exchange of opinions. Paul does not act deferential in the presence of these great minds. He does not assume a false humility and pretend he's just a truth seeker on his own spiritual journey looking for companions along the way. He declares the truth of God to them with authority and conviction. He does not use the conversational style and subdued demeanor most people today think we need to use so that we're not thought arrogant. Paul wasn't arrogant, because he was declaring infallible truth God had revealed. He was not merely floating an opinion of his own for the philosophers to kick around. And he used an appropriate method: a sermon, not a conversation.(emphasis mine)
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Arrogance of Speaching
Phil Johnson has another excellent post on Acts 17. Here are his concluding statements: