Discussion of the proper form and function of preaching.

graceandtruth said:
Smellin Coffee said:
christundivided said:
I see a fundamental problem with each of your views. The law was never given to make anyone righteous
Click to expand...

Maybe not the Law itself but God does say something about obedience and faith:

When your son asks you in time to come,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Besides, I showed you the context. Abraham believed God and Abraham counted it to God as righteousness. And I did that from the Old Testament.[/quote]

Actually, you didn't show context. You showed how you interpret that particular passage.

In reality, most translations leave it with the ambiguous "he" and "him". Every translation I've ever read that assigns the pronouns assigns them in the opposite order that you do. Furthermore, every commentary that I just (briefly) checked also assigns them in the opposite order you do.

So we have...

Smellin Coffee's interpretation vs the interpretation of multiple translations, the historical view of the Church, every commentary I read, and the words of Paul

...wonder who I should go with?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Besides, I showed you the context. Abraham believed God and Abraham counted it to God as righteousness. And I did that from the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't show context. You showed how you interpret that particular passage.

In reality, most translations leave it with the ambiguous "he" and "him". Every translation I've ever read that assigns the pronouns assigns them in the opposite order that you do. Furthermore, every commentary that I just (briefly) checked also assigns them in the opposite order you do.

So we have...

Smellin Coffee's interpretation vs the interpretation of multiple translations, the historical view of the Church, every commentary I read, and the words of Paul

...wonder who I should go with?
[/quote]

Strawman, Tinman, Cowardly Lion, or Dorthy..........LOL!

Of course we accept Smellin Coffee's eisegesis instead of the exegesis of the text.

He is too funny.  I can imagine him sitting at his computer snickering and saying, "They really think I am serious".
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Smellin Coffee]Besides, I showed you the context. Abraham believed God and Abraham counted it to God as righteousness. And I did that from the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Actually, you didn't show context. You showed how you interpret that particular passage.

In reality, most translations leave it with the ambiguous "he" and "him". Every translation I've ever read that assigns the pronouns assigns them in the opposite order that you do. Furthermore, every commentary that I just (briefly) checked also assigns them in the opposite order you do.

So we have...

Smellin Coffee's interpretation vs the interpretation of multiple translations, the historical view of the Church, every commentary I read, and the words of Paul

...wonder who I should go with?
[/quote]

I'm not the only one who holds that position.

Professor Victor P. Hamilton
 
lol, fellas, I like both of ya real well and enjoy what you bring to the forum.  And I'd usually be the last guy in the world to talk about folks hijackin' a thread, but (ain't there always one of those :D), ain't there a thread on this that you could hash this out?
 
[quote author=Smellin Coffee]...[/quote]

So if we change righteousness to be justice then we can change this to mean that and move this word here and another word there... In fact, the NT scholar whose quote you provided changed various words in a way that changed the entire meaning of the verse. He didn't just select a word here and a word there because, in order to change one word, he saw the need to change the direction of the text.

(I'm also aware that righteousness and justice has two meanings...something that tells me a lot about both words...I'm also aware that people who actually make it a living to learn Hebrew understand this text to read a certain way.)

Or we can cite post-Christ Jewish commentaries and ignore the the influence of Christianity on how the commentators interpret passages.

And Nehemiah just uses the same words. Those passages don't make your point at all.

---

I'm also amused that you think people 2000 years further removed from the text have a better clue how to read and understand ancient Hebrew than Paul would.
 
ALAYMAN said:
lol, fellas, I like both of ya real well and enjoy what you bring to the forum.  And I'd usually be the last guy in the world to talk about folks hijackin' a thread, but (ain't there always one of those :D), ain't there a thread on this that you could hash this out?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.  The wizard.....I mean Smellin is presenting the same uninspired unless I say it is inspired NT points to this thread and I just followed the yellow brick road.  "There is no place like home!' (said while clicking heels).  Please accept my apology for the hijack........now back to Kansas and our original post.  :D
 
ALAYMAN said:
lol, fellas, I like both of ya real well and enjoy what you bring to the forum.  And I'd usually be the last guy in the world to talk about folks hijackin' a thread, but (ain't there always one of those :D), ain't there a thread on this that you could hash this out?
Click to expand...

Sure thing. I've had my say.

Although Paul was a preacher. ;)
 
ALAYMAN said:
I have no formal training in homiletics, but have listened to scores of different preaching styles, in person and via electronic media, and one thing that is noticeable is that some men fail to wrap their message up in a way that is compelling.  I was recently commenting to another preacher how some men fail to end their sermons with an energy that pushes the hearer to act on the message that was just revealed to them.  Today's excerpt is related to the OP tangentially, but deals with how to seal the deal on the conclusion of the sermon...

Manipulation of emotions with a story that does not drive home the principles that have been developed in a message ranks among the worst abuses of preaching.  But nearly as great an offense is committed by failing to engage the heart, stimulate the will, excite the mind, and elevate the soul concerning eternal truths at this most crucial stage.  Preachers who ethically use a human-interest story account to elicit honest emotions, stir genuine feelings, and provoke appropriate convictions are following biblical injunctions to urge, persuade, and encourage.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree that preaching should illicit a response and in the preaching of Jesus, Peter, and Paul we see this done by appropriately interacting with the audience emotionally and intellectually to illicit a response to the truth being presented.  This is quite different from the emotional manipulation that takes place when human interest stories push the text and truth into the shadows. 

I like it here in Kansas.  :D
 
So, I guess we're all agreed that Christ-centered expository preaching is a good thing? Though this group does have a tendency to nitpick and go off on tangents and down rabbit trails, it seems like we have a consensus on that much.

I'll add a personal preference. I'm not saying every preacher should do it this way, or if they do, every time, because it may not fit their style or their audience... but it's what I like to hear: Scholarly preaching that teaches me theological "meat" and things I don't already know. That's what I'll go out of my way to listen to, and will change churches to find.
 
ALAYMAN said:
First, Christ's active obedience to the law laid the groundwork of acceptance for his passive sacrifice.
Click to expand...

I'm curious if you would expand upon this? The phrase "made under the law" is greatly misunderstood. I don't want to hijack your thread. Maybe another thread would be more appropriate. Suffice to say that "made under the law" has no demand of its proper keeping. Compare Romans 3:19 with Gal 4:4-5. The "law giver" is innately qualified as both Judge and Sacrifice.
 
graceandtruth said:
...  This is quite different from the emotional manipulation that takes place when human interest stories push the text and truth into the shadows. 
Click to expand...


Nice, really nice.  Indeed, some preachers use emotion in the way you intimate to solicit a manipulated decision by elevating the visceral over the cerebral, not unlike our pentecostal friends who whip their congregants into a frenzy to evoke the ecstactic utterance reminiscent of cackling barnyard animals.  We deplore the latter, but at times seem to laud the former.  I've heard Adrian Rogers say that the emotions is the shallowest element of our human makeup, not to be ignored, but it should be tethered to and flow from the relationship to Christ that if first forged through the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:1-2).

Izzi said:
So, I guess we're all agreed that Christ-centered expository preaching is a good thing? Though this group does have a tendency to nitpick and go off on tangents and down rabbit trails, it seems like we have a consensus on that much.
Click to expand...

Even the diehard expositional advocates that I listen to preach topical messages occasionally, and they are willing to note that Spurgeon preached essentially topical, so I don't think that topical preaching is to be completely relegated to the dunghill, but it ought not be the norm.

Izzi said:
I'll add a personal preference. I'm not saying every preacher should do it this way, or if they do, every time, because it may not fit their style or their audience... but it's what I like to hear: Scholarly preaching that teaches me theological "meat" and things I don't already know. That's what I'll go out of my way to listen to, and will change churches to find.
Click to expand...

I listen to RC Sproul's lectures for such probing intellectual challenges.  I think that the purpose for "scholarly preaching" (assuming I am describing something similar to what you are suggesting) of that sort doesn't quite rise to the level of what is to be done in the business of preaching a sermon, and that being to challenge the hearer to action.  Intellectual challenges ought to be part of our person, but if that component of mental exercise is the end of the efforts then it leaves out key components of what is addressed in a traditional Christian sermon, that being our will, and yes, our emotions.

christundivided said:
I'm curious if you would expand upon this?
Click to expand...

I agree that the discussion you are asking for might be better served in a completely separate thread, as it might be pretty far afield of the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss the mechanics and nuances of sermon preparation and delivery.  The short answer to your question is that Christ's death only pays our penalty for sin which relieves us of the culpability that we face (and would otherwise require God's just punishment), but His perfect obedience is the basis for how righteousness is credited to our account. 
 
ALAYMAN said:
Nice, really nice.  Indeed, some preachers use emotion in the way you intimate to solicit a manipulated decision by elevating the visceral over the cerebral,
Click to expand...

A good example of this would be a preacher who ignores all of the scripture references to wine and strong drink in their proper context, pulls out a single out-of-context verse, and justifies his interpretation of it by telling tear-jerking stories about all the lives he's seen destroyed by alcohol. 

 
Castor Muscular said:
ALAYMAN said:
Nice, really nice.  Indeed, some preachers use emotion in the way you intimate to solicit a manipulated decision by elevating the visceral over the cerebral,
Click to expand...

A good example of this would be a preacher who ignores all of the scripture references to wine and strong drink in their proper context, pulls out a single out-of-context verse, and justifies his interpretation of it by telling tear-jerking stories about all the lives he's seen destroyed by alcohol.
Click to expand...

Can I get a little clarification?  Are you guys saying that engaging the emotions as well as the intellect of people is a bad thing in preaching? 

I do not  think that there is such a clean cut between our emotions and intellect that we can engage one without engaging the other in some manner except on Vulcan  :D .  I think we see both being engaged by Christ in his many references to Hell, Peter in his reference to the people killing the Son of God, and in Paul's discourse with Felix in which he reasoned of judgment which the Holy Spirit used to bring such conviction on Felix that he trembled. 

Again, the tear-jerking illustrations that cast a shadow on the text making it secondary in the decision making process is manipulation and has no place in preaching.
 
graceandtruth said:
Can I get a little clarification?  Are you guys saying that engaging the emotions as well as the intellect of people is a bad thing in preaching? 
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I am saying at all.  Castor's merely trying to yank chains.  My point in a nutshell regarding emotions is that they are to be subordinate to the mind.  Put another way, the emotions should follow, not lead.  And I think you summed it up well when you said....


Again, the tear-jerking illustrations that cast a shadow on the text making it secondary in the decision making process is manipulation and has no place in preaching.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Even the diehard expositional advocates that I listen to preach topical messages occasionally, and they are willing to note that Spurgeon preached essentially topical, so I don't think that topical preaching is to be completely relegated to the dunghill, but it ought not be the norm.
Click to expand...

Where would one find the scriptures advocating expository preaching as the norm and topical not to be the norm?
 
Mathew Ward said:
ALAYMAN said:
Even the diehard expositional advocates that I listen to preach topical messages occasionally, and they are willing to note that Spurgeon preached essentially topical, so I don't think that topical preaching is to be completely relegated to the dunghill, but it ought not be the norm.
Click to expand...

Where would one find the scriptures advocating expository preaching as the norm and topical not to be the norm?
Click to expand...

The same place that I talks about Paul using the KJV.


;)


Seriously, where does it say in the Bible that emotion shouldn't be the basis for our appeal to the listener?  The arguments for such things aren't necessarily based on explicit commands so much as logical inferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top