It occurred to me that Paul uses no Scripture in the Acts 17 sermon to the Athenians. He does, however, quote a Stoic poet. Similarly, 1 Thessalonians, which probably was read as a sermon, quotes no Scripture either.
What are some possible reactions to these instances?
1. Paul and the author of Acts were inspired, you're not.
Fair enough. You can probably hammer a nail with a crowbar, but why not use a hammer?
2. This shows that the word of God is more than just the written text.
I don't see how anyone can even question this. The truths contained in Scripture can surely be presented in a different form than they appear in the biblical text.
3. It's dangerous to preach too much from what you think the truth is without referencing Scripture.
In other words, is repeated "topical" preaching without recourse to Scripture just begging for trouble at some point? Do you almost doom yourself at some point to substitute your thoughts for God's? Of course, I would say we substitute our own thoughts for God's even when we're using the text.
But what are your thoughts?