Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Church|Sat, Feb. 07 2009 11:10 AM EST

Over 5,000 Pastors Pledge to Keep Sermons Purely Biblical

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

How can a preacher avoid plagiarism in their sermons? Start with the Bible as their primary source for sermon preparation.

And so far, nearly 5,500 pastors have affirmed their commitment to do so.

"There isn't a pastor I know of that doesn't use other sources outside of the Bible," said Ron Forseth, general editor of SermonCentral.com, which claims to be the world's most highly trafficked sermon website. "Most look to the wisdom and experience of their preaching colleagues.

"The question is what place the Bible takes in their sermon preparation and delivery."

Forseth was the first to take "The Preacher's Pledge" at the launch of the campaign last year. By signing on to it, Forseth made a commitment to keep the Word of God preeminent in his preaching and to use other resources to enhance rather than replace his personal interaction with Scripture.

"We encourage every pastor to carefully study the appropriate passages and 'make them their own' – that is, to carefully study and gain a solid grasp of the biblical passages they are preaching," Forseth commented. "Our site is a valuable supplement – but not the primary source for a sermon. God's Word is."

Scott Evans, president of Outreach, Inc., which owns SermonCentral.com, added, "We want to strengthen the quality of preaching in pulpits around the world. The Preacher's Pledge is helping to do that by affirming pastors that keep their messages purely and intentionally biblical."

The Preacher's Pledge was introduced as sermons have become widely and easily accessible through the Internet. SermonCentral.com alone offers over 140,000 free sermons and illustrations from pastors and ministers. Many pastors also offer their sermons for free on their church websites.

With that, many have used sermon series originally preached by other, and most likely more renowned, pastors.

"In the case of entire sermons supplied by another pastor, some pastors may mold a large amount of another’s sermon according to their own study," Forseth noted. "Others may adjust another’s sermon only slightly because, after careful examination, they view the sermon of another leader as solidly biblical.

"I think it is a very rare pastor who takes a sermon word-for-word with no personalization and independent study."

While the free resources can serve to help pastors write better sermons, help grow their knowledge of God and even save them some time, sermon resources can also lead to laziness, shortchange the personal conviction that comes with struggling over a passage and also prevent pastors from taking into account their congregation's need, according to SermonCentral.com.

Forseth noted that those behind The Preacher's Pledge do not seek to be the conscience of a pastor, but they do point to the Bible as the source of authority and the root of every message a pastor preaches.

"Our goal for The Preacher's Pledge is to urge pastors to preach the Word, not just ideas that seem relevant or helpful," he highlighted.

To take The Preacher's Pledge, visit www.sermoncentral.com/preacherspledge.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Pooor believer. He can't post anything, anywhere, on any topic where he doesn't take a cheap shot at the Catholic Church. It's a bizarre obsession that comes from a limited, stilted view of worship and collection of wrongful facts.

    How many times to you need to read it in print before you understand that Catholics don't worship MarY? Catholics would never make that claim, so it's lack of knowledge there about what the Church actually teaches.
    It's a common mistake bible only people make. My own step daughter asked me why Catholics worship Mary instead of Jesus. I had to tell her she was getting bad information and to do some reseach of her own.

    Conclusions and opinions based on false information are worthless, which is probably why Catholics don't concern themselves much with evangelicals. It's not that important. Our salvation is.

  • Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    If posters would hold their posts to the same standards these Pastors are agreeing to, a lot of the discussion of extra-biblical teachings and beliefs would come to a halt and we could stay focused on defending and advocating biblical teachings and principles only.

  • Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Recprot,

    Well said . . . it is necessary at times to answer and sometimes refute a claim that many know to be incorrect . . . for the most part I agree with your post.

  • Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Good comeback...

    Honestly, I would hope after reading some of these posts that several on this board could take a break from the rhetoric which seems to rise well above a decent discussion. I can understand that some feel obligated to respond to what they believe is false teaching, but I can assure you none of this is a good witness to the atheists/securalists who also read this site.

    Take a deep breath! I ask this for my Catholic brothers and sisters as well.

  • Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Recprot,

    Say when..........

  • Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm your huckleberry..................

  • Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Where did all the Catholics go all of a sudden? I know it couldn't be anything I said.

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:11 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Should I post all the heresies of the Catholic Church again? Catholics believe that Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church. That's a bunch of malarkey. There is not proof of that, and their claims are simply for supporting their false views. And even if, by some chance, Peter was the founder of the Church, it certainly wasn't the Catholic Church. Much of what they believe goes completely against what Peter taught. To say that Peter founded Catholicism, and then teach doctrines that oppose his is laughable at best.

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:07 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    ". So go ahead, keep rejecting His church, but remember, you are are also rejecting Him."

    How can I reject the Church when I'm part of it? That doesn't make sense. I reject the false religion of Catholicism, but I embrace God's true Church.

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:47 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy1000 said, "He was speaking to the apostles, the ones who with His authority shaped the Holy Catholic Church."

    The church that Jesus is building has never be shaped to kiss the foot of Peter, any one proclaiming to be Peter's "successor," or any statue representing Peter and neither will it be. Do you not know what type of spirit would lead that way?

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:37 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy,

    I do not know if I should . . . you tend to disappear and not answer any questions . . .

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prove it....

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Tallguy,

    You are right; he was speaking to the apostles . . . but you are wrong when you say (His authority shaped the RCC) . . . why do you continue to proclaim that your church was the first church; history proves otherwise my friend?

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    tallguy, the only ones rejecting His Church are those of you who claim that any one denomination is the one true church, when in truth God's Universal Church is made up of any person(s) who have repented of their sins and turned to God by putting their complete faith/trust in the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone!

  • Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Online and Believer, while the two of you are busy prancing around and slapping each other on the back giggle giggle, what you really are prime examples of who Jesus was talking about when He said..."if they reject you they reject me". He was speaking to the apostles, the ones who with His authority shaped the Holy Catholic Church. So go ahead, keep rejecting His church, but remember, you are are also rejecting Him.

  • Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    Amen . . . we need to be very careful not to place a stumbling block (tradition) in the path of other believers; especially when there is no scriptural mandate for doing so.

  • Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Online,
    Amen. A good example I use is Sunday School. It is not scriptural, though most churches use it. But none teach it as doctrine. I haven't heard one church say "This is the way God wants it, and if you don't have Sunday School, you're apostate."

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Intrigued,

    Extra biblical teaching is exactly that and nothing more . . . I have no problem with tradition in itself until it contradicts or replaces the Word of God . . . also, any tradition that is not mentioned in the Scriptures should never be imposed upon believers as something binding.

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    int, my two rules of thumb with extrabiblical teaching. Number One, acknowledge it as just that, it's fine to cite Scripture that appear to support it, but be honest enough to call it what it is. Number Two, if this teaching contradicts, violates, or supersedes the inerrant Word of God then it should be taught as just that and Scripture should be cited to affirm the fact that this extrabiblical teaching does just that. And that teaching should be seen as a minimum a false teaching if not heresy.

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    O4H and Believer

    I apologize for not getting back with you sooner. My intent with the reference to Jude 9 was not to spark a discussion on purgatory, but rather to get your insight into an inspired writers use of extra biblical material, and if that would allow others, over time, to develop concepts/dogmas, etc. that while not explicit in Scripture, could be inferred. Thoughts?

  • Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:02 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "The word for brothers and sisters was also used interchangebly at the time of Jesus to describe friends and/or cousins."


    Very incorrect.

    Luke 1:36: "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."

    The word "cousin" is "suggenes", which means "cousin" or "a relative"

    The word "brother" that is used throughout the New Testament is "adelphos" which means "a brother, figuratively (as in my brother in Christ) or literally".

    So the Catholic false propaganda that "brother could mean cousin" is incorrect.

    Brother meant brother. Simple. Jesus had brothers.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer,

    Yes, you and I are prime examples of former Catholics who came to a clear understanding of Gods Word . . . unfortunately, msn (chris) continues to promote extra biblical teachings that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    online, I have, it says when a catholic truly studies the Word of God they will learn that many of the things they were taught as a catholic cannot be found in the Word of God.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    chris, we have heard your catholic propaganda on this before and every good Bible commentary and Biblical Apologist says that it is clear that Mary had other children besides Jesus. Plus, why is it so important that she didn't if she is not seen as a person to be worshipped? Why is perpetual virginity so important?

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I honestly have not heard a sound biblical case for Catholicism yet . . .

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Rumor has it that Lee Stroebel is considering converting to Catholicism.

    Next book "Case for Catholicism" I'll bet!

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Believer and Phileo,

    Again you are mistaken in Matt 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21 are basically the same discussing Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters. What is interesting is that neither of you cross referenced to see who they were referring to?

    The word for brothers and sisters was also used interchangebly at the time of Jesus to describe friends and/or cousins. Brothers and sisters as used in scripture in both new and old were not exclusively used for blood relatives.

    In Mark 6:3 "Is he not the carpenter, 3 the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." Now isn't it also interesting that NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE does it EVER DESCRIBE MARY HAVING OTHER KIDS younger than Jesus or MARY HAVING A BABY AFTER JESUS. Never in the bible does it say Mary the mother of Jesus, Simon, James, Joses, etc. Sounds like they were referring to Jesus Apostles and Disciples and not blood bro's and sisters. Scripture only refers to THIS MARY AS THE MOTHER OF JESUS and never anyone else.

    When Jesus dies on the cross, he gives His mother to John and not a sibling. AGAIN THIS WOULD be a HUGE slap in the face to HIS OWN FAMILY if he had BLOOD Siblings or even step siblings. Jesus always honored his mother and step father and this would have clearly dishonored them.

    Lastly, maybe Jesus had older step brothers and sisters from Joseph who had these children before Jesus. This is also more likely false too since historically only one of the James' was know to be a so-called brother of Jesus and yet he wasn't even chosen as an apostle. Seems very odd that it took his own brother to accept him only after he died.

    The most historic and ancient conclusion would be that After Jesus was seen teaching at the temple, Joseph being much older and never mentioned after the Temple incident, simply died having fulfilled taking care of Mary and Jesus'. Also, Mary was known to be taken care of by John and John created a refuge for her in Ephesus where millions still go today to visit the "House" of Mary.

    Oral Tradition fills in the gap where your over arching guestimates and lack of any Explicit scriptural proof is lacking. You see, Oral Tradition is reliable because of the source of where this information came from within the same time period it was recorded in other books not considered scripture, but certainly considered reliable witnesses.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I too recomment the "The Case For Faith", "The Case For A Creator", or "The Case For Christ" . . . they are very informative!

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "wow! there's no point to the Bible? boy that's a relief! kinda like mtgburrel's life!"

    And so Christian, too....

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "wow! there's no point to the Bible? boy that's a relief! kinda like mtgburrel's life!"

    Charming.....

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "an example of subjective reasoning"

    Yes - the same as yours.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And the fact that you "discern a meaning intended by an Author" does not prove that there is one."

    wow! there's no point to the Bible? boy that's a relief! kinda like mtgburrel's life!

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It will be a great movement, if the Pastors will pray
    a few hours/week and seek and prepare a sermon, so that
    it can create life and purpose in the congregation.
    Recent trend was the heavy dose of plagiarism, soothing
    positive thinking and the exciting prosperity gospel;and the souls were starving for spiritual food in the
    sermons.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "The fact that humans seek subjective meanings to a biblical passage does not prove that there is no discenable objective meaning intended by the Author."

    And the fact that you "discern a meaning intended by an Author" does not prove that there is one.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    believer wrote: "mtg, because if Mary did have children other than Jesus it destroys many if not most of the catholic church's teachings on Mary."

    What's so wrong with that? All our churches need to learn. It's not too late, of course, IF they (we) are willing.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    philo wrote: "For instance, as Carl Sagan once said: The differences between the Abrahamic religions pale before their similarities." From where I stand there is not a "jot or tiddle" of difference between the Christian sects. When I meet a Christian, I assume certain beliefs, and most of the time I am somewhat inaccurate, depending almost upon which church the person attends, let alone the sect. In my experience, Christians tend to drift from church-to-church hoping to find one that isn't too much one way or the other, depending upon exactly what the individual believes (or wishes to believe-a more accurate term) is true.

    I don't care about any of this, you may believe whatever you like, of course, as may I. In fact, I really don't care WHAT you believe, or what you practice, just as long as you don't legislate any of your religion and use the police power of the state to enforce dogma."

    I have rarely read a post on CP with with I agree so wholeheartedly.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    Online on Robert Bly: "he seems to be teaching a form of new age..."

    No, I am not really involved with that, but I when I hear the ring of truth I recognize it.

    I don't think there is anything "new" about what Bly says. These concepts (just like Biblical concepts) are a lot older than the Bible.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtg, because if Mary did have children other than Jesus it destroys many if not most of the catholic church's teachings on Mary.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    philo wrote: "Consider this: Most of you (and perhaps all of you) are wrong."

    philo is right, I think. We all see through the glass darkly. Thanks for saying it, philo!

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    philo, have you read any of Lee Strobel's books, "The Case For Faith", "The Case For A Creator", or "The Case For Christ", if you haven't I would encourage you to consider doing so. He is a former atheist and he set out to prove there was no God and the books share where his journey led him.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "* Misunderstanding #1: Mary must have had other children with Joseph..."

    Gee whiz, FullGospel, how many practicing Christians really care about this point? (serious question)

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Believer:

    Very quickly, you see, we get to the crux of the matter, the whole center of the so-called "culture war." I have spent a good portion of my life searching for credible evidence of the truth of "God's word," as you put it, without finding any that was compelling.

    You are correct in that those of us who are non-theists tend to paint with a pretty broad brush. For instance, as Carl Sagan once said: The differences between the Abrahamic religions pale before their similarities." From where I stand there is not a "jot or tiddle" of difference between the Christian sects. When I meet a Christian, I assume certain beliefs, and most of the time I am somewhat inaccurate, depending almost upon which church the person attends, let alone the sect. In my experience, Christians tend to drift from church-to-church hoping to find one that isn't too much one way or the other, depending upon exactly what the individual believes (or wishes to believe-a more accurate term) is true.

    I don't care about any of this, you may believe whatever you like, of course, as may I. In fact, I really don't care WHAT you believe, or what you practice, just as long as you don't legislate any of your religion and use the police power of the state to enforce dogma.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mtgburrell,

    I did read the article that you posted . . . it does seem that Bly is actively seeking to help men to understand their own gender identity through a mixture of folklore and psychological self help. His website also discusses the entities of the great mother and the new father . . . I did not find an explicit definition for these titles . . . he seems to be teaching a form of new age; a collection of universal thinking and moral relativism. Is this correct? Are you a part of this movement? Thanks for sharing.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    philo, all real truth is God's truth and although God's Word does not contain all the truth there is, it is the foundation for all truth. If some supposed truth either contradicts, violates, or supersedes the truths taught in God's Word then it is not true. I believe you paint with too wide a brush with your view, for instance there is much truth in science but some views of science as we have presented by some is not true because those so-called truths either contradict, violate, and/or supersede truths taught in God's Word.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You can't have it both ways, either in Science or theology." please speak only for yourself - my theology and science are not only mutually compatible but completely in line with each other.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "You cannot accept that nuclear power (and bombs) work and not accept modern dating methods. You can't have it both ways..."

    Actually, you can. Just because a nuclear bomb works, doesn't mean that dating methods are automatically going to be correct.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer:

    What I meant was, things either work one way, or they don't There is either something like a "purgatory" or there is not. Intercessory prayer works for the deceased, or it does not. Theology is one way or the other, in many cases different Christian sects believe things that are mutually exclusive.

    Following on, all life on earth evolved through a process of modification and natural selection, or it did not. Actually, the position of conservative Protestant Christians is the most consistent of all Christian positions on science. It (science) is either all fiction or it is not. You can't pick and choose. You cannot accept that nuclear power (and bombs) work and not accept modern dating methods. You can't have it both ways, either in Science or theology.

    Does that make it clearer?

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The truth and understanding of God and His word do not come from man, they are granted to man from God via the Holy Spirit.

    If we do not have the ears to hear, then we cannot have truth and understanding.

    Is it possible to have "typo's" in the Bible? Yes. And we need to identify and keep Spirit-filled leaders who have the ears to hear and help correct these errors.

    We don't want leaders who just make us feel good. We want leaders that have the ears to hear.

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    philo, "most of you are wrong" care to explain?

  • Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    Reading this debate reminds of nothing so much as listening to a bunch of children debating the "rules" of a Saturday afternoon game of hide-and-go-seek.

    No wonder there are in excess of 30,000 different sects and denominations of Christianity, with every single one believing they have the only ticket. Consider this: Most of you (and perhaps all of you) are wrong.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Church Fundraisers
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links