Discussion of the proper form and function of preaching.

rsc2a said:
I never said he was a heretic. I said that quote is heretical. There is a difference.

And, yes, anyone that says God is not going to redeem the emotions of mankind is making a heretical statement.

On a side note, who cares how many books he's written? Spong has written tons of books too, but his prolific writing doesn't make his words true.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand the words of Tarheel AND Baxter.  Baxter's quote is not saying that God will not redeem the emotions of mankind but rather that emotions can be hindrances to the will if we allow them, and that God does a work of salvation to make a new creature, and then after we have the new man we are still plagued by that sinful nature.  Our mind must be renewed, regardless of how we feel about it.  He spelled it out in more detail here: http://www.sermonstore.org/J-SidlowBaxter/Baxter-Index.html

And Tarheel wasn't saying that Baxter is justified by his quantity of volumes, but rather that it is amusing that despite his great number of writings nobody had discovered his heresy until just now on the little ol' FFF.

 
Today's excerpt deals with the manner in which a sermon ought to be concluded.  The claim is made that the final thought of a sermon should encourage the believer, not kick him:

No man has a right so to preach as to send his hearers away on flat tires.  Every discouraging sermon is a wicked sermon....A discouraged man is not an asset but a liability.
Click to expand...


I concur.  The gospel is the message of hope.  No matter how mightily we've failed the Savior we serve a God of second, third, and nth chances.  We need to speak to the hope in Christ, no matter the sermon.
 
ALAYMAN said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would be illogical then to infer one over the other without an explicit command.

I wonder where the emotions are within us?  Once you determine that, I am sure there are plenty of Scripture directed there.
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
STOP THE PRESSES!

Sidlow Baxter is posthumously declared to be a heretic.....after authoring over 25 books, it wasn't discovered until today...on the fff.....by rsc2a!
Click to expand...

I never said he was a heretic. I said that quote is heretical. There is a difference.

And, yes, anyone that says God is not going to redeem the emotions of mankind is making a heretical statement.

On a side note, who cares how many books he's written? Spong has written tons of books too, but his prolific writing doesn't make his words true.
Click to expand...

Not much difference....they get to be heretics by making heretical statements.
And he didn't say God wouldn't redeem the emotions, merely that the emotions were way down the priority list in God's dealings with man's salvation.

I only meant that Baxter was well known and his positions were very public and they had not been 'discovered' to be heretical until now....
 
[quote author=Mathew Ward]


It would be illogical then to infer one over the other without an explicit command.

I wonder where the emotions are within us?  Once you determine that, I am sure there are plenty of Scripture directed there.
[/quote]
Explicit commands are not always required.  Inferences can be made with logical use of principles.  Topical preaching often leads to a preacher falling back on thematic content that they are familiar and comfortable with rather than touching on or emphasizing what God has mentioned.
 
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Not much difference....they get to be heretics by making heretical statements.[/quote]

But there is a difference.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And he didn't say God wouldn't redeem the emotions, merely that the emotions were way down the priority list in God's dealings with man's salvation.[/quote]

Based on the quote provided, he said God wouldn't redeem the emotions. Now it's always possible that Alayman used a quote out of context....

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I only meant that Baxter was well known and his positions were very public and they had not been 'discovered' to be heretical until now....[/quote]

That statement, as it stands alone, is unquestionably heretical.
 
[quote author=ALAYMAN]You misunderstand the words of Tarheel AND Baxter.  Baxter's quote is not saying that God will not redeem the emotions of mankind but rather that emotions can be hindrances to the will if we allow them, and that God does a work of salvation to make a new creature, and then after we have the new man we are still plagued by that sinful nature.[/quote]

The quote you provided doesn't say that. Are you saying you used a quote out of context?  :o

And, are you saying that the intellect or our physical bodies cannot be a hindrance? So let's see: mind, emotion, and body can all be a hindrance and God will redeem them all. I'm starting to see a theme here...
 
ALAYMAN said:
[quote author=Mathew Ward]It would be illogical then to infer one over the other without an explicit command.

I wonder where the emotions are within us?  Once you determine that, I am sure there are plenty of Scripture directed there.
Click to expand...
Explicit commands are not always required.  Inferences can be made with logical use of principles.  Topical preaching often leads to a preacher falling back on thematic content that they are familiar and comfortable with rather than touching on or emphasizing what God has mentioned.[/quote]

Just because a method can be misused and/or abused does not make the method inherently wrong.
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Not much difference....they get to be heretics by making heretical statements.
Click to expand...

But there is a difference.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And he didn't say God wouldn't redeem the emotions, merely that the emotions were way down the priority list in God's dealings with man's salvation.[/quote]

Based on the quote provided, he said God wouldn't redeem the emotions. Now it's always possible that Alayman used a quote out of context....

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I only meant that Baxter was well known and his positions were very public and they had not been 'discovered' to be heretical until now....[/quote]

That statement, as it stands alone, is unquestionably heretical.
[/quote]

Perhaps there is a land, somewhere, wherein heretics become heretics by making orthodox statements.....

The quote is not heretical.

The quote is not heretical.
 
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The quote is not heretical.[/quote]

The quote again...

 
ALAYMAN said:
[quote author=Mathew Ward]


It would be illogical then to infer one over the other without an explicit command.

I wonder where the emotions are within us?  Once you determine that, I am sure there are plenty of Scripture directed there.
Click to expand...
Explicit commands are not always required.  Inferences can be made with logical use of principles.  Topical preaching often leads to a preacher falling back on thematic content that they are familiar and comfortable with rather than touching on or emphasizing what God has mentioned.
[/quote]

Just because it can doesn't mean it will.  As you stated earlier the "Prince of Preachers" was mostly topical. 

Since we are inferring here, can one preach the Bible topically without violating any explicit commands?  Can one logically convey the truths and principles of Scripture topically?

If those are possible to do both topically and expositorialy then we are discussing a matter of style.

If one is going to infer one style is not to be the norm I would think having a Scriptural backing would be needed if they are going to be Scriptural in teaching such.  If there isn't any Scriptural mandate then placing your logical preference as the norm (or the standard) comes across as man made.
 
Since we are inferring and looking to logic for implicit commands...I wonder where this Scripture would lend itself to (topical or expository)?

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

;)
 
Mathew Ward said:
Just because it can doesn't mean it will.  As you stated earlier the "Prince of Preachers" was mostly topical. 
Click to expand...

Agreed.  I never meant to say that topical preaching cannot be done right (as you've alluded to be citing my Spurgeon reference), no am I saying that it is Biblically forbidden.  What I've tried to say is that if a person preaches expositionally it is much harder to get off into ditches, or cherry picking.  It serves as a check and balance.  Of course it is possible to be balanced and cover the broad range of the full counsel of God whilst preaching topically, but the truth is that there's more likelihood for the preacher to resort to what his comfort zone is, and to get lazy.  Preaching expositionally has a better guarantee of being tethered to the intent of the word.

MathewWard said:
Since we are inferring here, can one preach the Bible topically without violating any explicit commands?  Can one logically convey the truths and principles of Scripture topically?

If those are possible to do both topically and expositorialy then we are discussing a matter of style.

If one is going to infer one style is not to be the norm I would think having a Scriptural backing would be needed if they are going to be Scriptural in teaching such.  If there isn't any Scriptural mandate then placing your logical preference as the norm (or the standard) comes across as man made.
Click to expand...

Does a preacher have the latitude to preach topically?  Sure.  But I've made my case, and am comfortable with it logically, and experientially.  I had a HAC insider tell me that Jack Hyles made the claim to him that he only had about 20 different sermons (topics is what he meant IMHO) but that he makes minor variations to them and they appear different throughout the years.  That's simple laziness in my opinion.  It is relying on cotton-candy themes and it is pandering to the crowd.  In that circle, every text is about soulwinning, or almost every one.  That's taking topical preaching and forcing things into the text, because not every subject in the Bible is about evangelism.  That might be one of the more extreme evidences of what I mean, but the same tendencies that goes into the hobby-horse preachin' at FBCH also is a pitfall for those who let their thinking determine the text rather than the text drive their thinking.
 
Mathew Ward said:
Since we are inferring and looking to logic for implicit commands...I wonder where this Scripture would lend itself to (topical or expository)?

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

;)
Click to expand...

There may be something here worth a little attention.  The idea in your post above which I've highlighted, that being the concept of "command", hearkens back to a tendency that you are reverting to which I think might miss the mark.  Not everything in the <NT> Bible comes to us in the form of commands.  Some things are more in the form of "good, better, best".  We don't have to have a command to avoid golfing in order to go soulwinning (or pick any other charitable and benevolent act here).  The Spirit says all things are lawful but all things are not expedient.  This leaves a wide range of personal applications, applications I might make as the Spirit leads, and applications which I wouldn't necessarily impose on other people.  That sort of thing is partially at play here I believe.  You may even refer to it as a preference I suppose, but I believe it is a worthwhile recommendation as a strong preference.  Similar to the idea of Billy Graham being above reproach by never being seen alone with a female of the opposite sex.  Was he commanded to take up that practice?  Nope.  Was it a good idea?  For him it worked out pretty well, and maybe ought to have been adopted by many other preachers and men. 
 
ALAYMAN said:
Mathew Ward said:
Since we are inferring and looking to logic for implicit commands...I wonder where this Scripture would lend itself to (topical or expository)?

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

;)
Click to expand...

There may be something here worth a little attention.  The idea in your post above which I've highlighted, that being the concept of "command", hearkens back to a tendency that you are reverting to which I think might miss the mark.  Not everything in the <NT> Bible comes to us in the form of commands.  Some things are more in the form of "good, better, best".  We don't have to have a command to avoid golfing in order to go soulwinning (or pick any other charitable and benevolent act here).  The Spirit says all things are lawful but all things are not expedient.  This leaves a wide range of personal applications, applications I might make as the Spirit leads, and applications which I wouldn't necessarily impose on other people.  That sort of thing is partially at play here I believe.  You may even refer to it as a preference I suppose, but I believe it is a worthwhile recommendation as a strong preference.  Similar to the idea of Billy Graham being above reproach by never being seen alone with a female of the opposite sex.  Was he commanded to take up that practice?  Nope.  Was it a good idea?  For him it worked out pretty well, and maybe ought to have been adopted by many other preachers and men.
Click to expand...

And the danger in preferences (especially at FBC Hammond from your previous post) is that the Preacher's preference ( insert music, dress, Bible version, words) is the churches conviction.

In regards to preaching I can't say which way is good and which way is best (topical, expository).  But I use both styles and both require thought and study.

I am preaching a series "Discovering a Biblically Balanced Life" with our example being Jesus being both God and man and always responding properly or balanced.  The 5 parts we need in our life to stay balanced are grace, love, truth, faith and humility.  The key is keeping them balanced in every area of our life (family, work, church, social, education, decision making etc) and keeping every biblical issue (standards, salvation, sanctification) balanced as well.

Topics include:
1. Introduction to the series
2. Balancing the 5 different areas (grace, love, truth, faith, humility)
3. Creating a margin in our life (we are over scheduled, over burdened and over extended and it creates stress in our relationships)
4. Humility and Faith
5.  Balancing the issues

 
Mathew Ward said:
And the danger in preferences (especially at FBC Hammond from your previous post) is that the Preacher's preference ( insert music, dress, Bible version, words) is the churches conviction.
Click to expand...

And one benefit IMHO of expository preaching is that those biases of preferences are a bit harder to work into the sermon (without the hearer knowing they have obviously pressed upon the text).

MW said:
In regards to preaching I can't say which way is good and which way is best (topical, expository).  But I use both styles and both require thought and study.

I am preaching a series "Discovering a Biblically Balanced Life" with our example being Jesus being both God and man and always responding properly or balanced.  The 5 parts we need in our life to stay balanced are grace, love, truth, faith and humility.  The key is keeping them balanced in every area of our life (family, work, church, social, education, decision making etc) and keeping every biblical issue (standards, salvation, sanctification) balanced as well.

Topics include:
1. Introduction to the series
2. Balancing the 5 different areas (grace, love, truth, faith, humility)
3. Creating a margin in our life (we are over scheduled, over burdened and over extended and it creates stress in our relationships)
4. Humility and Faith
5.  Balancing the issues
Click to expand...

Sounds good bro.

This is the sort of conversation I was hoping for when I started the thread.
 
[quote author=Mathew Ward]I am preaching a series "Discovering a Biblically Balanced Life" with our example being Jesus being both God and man and always responding properly or balanced.  The 5 parts we need in our life to stay balanced are grace, love, truth, faith and humility.  The key is keeping them balanced in every area of our life (family, work, church, social, education, decision making etc) and keeping every biblical issue (standards, salvation, sanctification) balanced as well.

Topics include:
1. Introduction to the series
2. Balancing the 5 different areas (grace, love, truth, faith, humility)
3. Creating a margin in our life (we are over scheduled, over burdened and over extended and it creates stress in our relationships)
4. Humility and Faith
5.  Balancing the issues[/quote]

I would definitely include hope but this sounds pretty good.
 
Today's quote deals with something I was trying to say in this thread when I last responded to Izdaari regarding an "intellectual sermon", and that being that the challenge of every Christian sermon is to make the connection with the hearer to the content of the Bible for contemporary application's sake....


In his classic On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, this master teacher and preacher concludes that  in an expository sermon, "the application of the sermon is not merely an appendage to the discussion or a subordinate part of it, but is the main thing to be done."  For Broadus, the primary duty of the expositor is to exhort the people of God to apply the truths revealed in Scripture because this is the intent of God's Word.
Click to expand...

After all, it is good to know that God is Holy, but the question of "what now" is on the mind of those who hear about holiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top