IFB and the need for biblical preaching.

I'm heartily for contextual preaching, and strongly against the ranting, philosophizing, and spiritualizing that marks many preachers we both know...

...but to equate sound, biblical preaching with only expositional preaching is to confuse the issue needlessly. Whack him all you want, Bro. Hyles was correct when he said there isn't a single expository sermon in the New Testament. Now I think he said that to allow himself cover for his own occasionally flawed approach, but the point is still valid. A sermon may be a perfectly good (in the sense of clearly biblical) sermon without being an expository sermon.

The point is to preach what God said, the Word of God rather than the word of me. But it doesn't have to be an expository message to accomplish this.
 
Those 'topical sermons' had the Holy Ghost bearing witness to them with signs and wonders...and I think there is a lot to be said for preaching Scripture in the manner in which God revealed it.
 
Exell said:
Those 'topical sermons' had the Holy Ghost bearing witness to them with signs and wonders
Click to expand...

What miracle accompanied John the Baptist's topical sermon in Matthew 3?
What miracle accompanied the greatest sermon ever preached, a topical sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, in Matthew 5-7?
What miracle accompanied Stephen's topical sermon in Acts 7?
What miracle accompanied Paul's topical sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17?
What miracle accompanied Apollos' topical sermons in Acts 18?
What miracle accompanied Paul's topical sermon to Agrippa in Acts 26?

...if you want to preach exclusively expository messages I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a tremendous problem with maintaining that a contextual, careful, scriptural message on a certain topic or subject is wrong. You won't find that position in the New Testament. You can only find it in the books you are reading.

 
Hebrews 2:3-4  How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The teachings of Christ and the apostles was accompanied by signs and wonders...you know this. When a preacher's topical ministry is accompanied by signs and wonders then I will trust it, actually that would be unbiblical too, so...

I'm not saying a topical sermon based on a text is wrong (just what is normally passed of as one), I will however say it is unwise. I have a conviction that God revealed truth in the manner in which he did for a reason, He laid his case out perfectly, and when we subvert his method and order of revelation, I believe we do ourselves a disservice.
Your argument of the manner of New T. preaching fails to address this because, 1. It predates New T. scripture. 2. Since these men were not bound by Scripture, their teaching was accompanied by signs and wonders...signs and wonders not needed today because a sermon is validated by Scripture.
 
Tom Brennan said:
I'm heartily for contextual preaching, and strongly against the ranting, philosophizing, and spiritualizing that marks many preachers we both know...

...but to equate sound, biblical preaching with only expositional preaching is to confuse the issue needlessly. Whack him all you want, Bro. Hyles was correct when he said there isn't a single expository sermon in the New Testament. Now I think he said that to allow himself cover for his own occasionally flawed approach, but the point is still valid. A sermon may be a perfectly good (in the sense of clearly biblical) sermon without being an expository sermon.

The point is to preach what God said, the Word of God rather than the word of me. But it doesn't have to be an expository message to accomplish this.
Click to expand...

Tom, I would never get into a debate with a pastor over how he chooses to preach. But, doesn't expository simply mean to bring out the meaning of a particular writing? If that is the case then Stephen, Peter, Paul, and a lot of others did bring forth 'expositions'.
 
BALAAM said:
Tom, I would never get into a debate with a pastor over how he chooses to preach. But, doesn't expository simply mean to bring out the meaning of a particular writing? If that is the case then Stephen, Peter, Paul, and a lot of others did bring forth 'expositions'.
Click to expand...

It depends how you define it. Generally speaking, though, the idea of expository preaching is generally understood to be taking a book of the Bible and going through it basically verse by verse. In this sense, there are no expository sermons in the NT for every NT sermon was built around a particular topic or numbers of topics rather than taking a book of the OT and going through it chapter by chapter or verse by verse.

...and I most definitely am NOT against expository preaching. I don't mean to imply that at all. In fact, I'm writing a book right now that is completely expository.
 
Tom Brennan said:
BALAAM said:
Tom, I would never get into a debate with a pastor over how he chooses to preach. But, doesn't expository simply mean to bring out the meaning of a particular writing? If that is the case then Stephen, Peter, Paul, and a lot of others did bring forth 'expositions'.
Click to expand...

It depends how you define it. Generally speaking, though, the idea of expository preaching is generally understood to be taking a book of the Bible and going through it basically verse by verse. In this sense, there are no expository sermons in the NT for every NT sermon was built around a particular topic or numbers of topics,....
Click to expand...

I'm led to think of this verse after reading that though,
John 21:25 KJV
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
 
"rather than taking a book of the OT and going through it chapter by chapter or verse by verse."

Because they had a ministry of 'new revelation'. Why would we think that we should handle preaching in the same manner as those who had a ministry of new revelation, a ministry so odd that it was accompanied with signs and wonders to validate it?

I get that you are not against expository preaching, just as I am not against all topical preaching, I just think this argument for topical preaching has a few holes in it.
 
Exell said:
"rather than taking a book of the OT and going through it chapter by chapter or verse by verse."

Because they had a ministry of 'new revelation'. Why would we think that we should handle preaching in the same manner as those who had a ministry of new revelation, a ministry so odd that it was accompanied with signs and wonders to validate it?

I get that you are not against expository preaching, just as I am not against all topical preaching, I just think this argument for topical preaching has a few holes in it.
Click to expand...

Luke 24:27 KJV
[27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


 
I hadn't thought of that verse.... I guess that throws out the 'no expository sermon in the New T.' argument. I guess, maybe they wouldn't consider that a sermon...not sure i do.
 
Exell said:
I hadn't thought of that verse.... I guess that throws out the 'no expository sermon in the New T.' argument. I guess, maybe they wouldn't consider that a sermon...not sure i do.
Click to expand...

The reference shows that all they had for scripture was the Old Testament. It wasn't a new message then. Maybe a better understanding of the old message.
 
I don't think you can deny that Jesus ministry was one of new revelation. Whatever he taught in that instance does not deny that fact.

Heb 1:1,2 " God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His son."

Jesus brought new revelation and he was the end of all revelation.

The apostles, those who were with Him from the baptism of John to his ascension had a ministry of bringing that revelation to the masses.

John 14:26 "and shall bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever I have said unto you"

Both had their ministry, along with the prophets, confirmed with signs and wonders.

Heb 2:3,4 "which at the first began to be spoken by The Lord and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost,"

My point is, just as we would not develop doctrine from some of the unique events from the book of acts, we should not model our presentation of truth after those who had this unique ministry. We are neither giving new revelation, nor do we signs and wonders to back up our sermons. We have the inspired record, and we should allow it to set the shape and emphasis of our sermons and we should follow its inspired presentation of truth. We are not smarter than God and he knew best how to present His truth.
In a way, a topical sermon, presuppose that it can arrange biblical truth in a more effective manner than the Holy Spirit who inspired it.

Posted from my phone... Probably full of errors.
 
Topical sermons aren't the problem.
Contextual divergence is.
If we believe in the Spirit, then we believe that contextual divergence is a spiritual problem.  The wanderer either has not the Spirit, or wasn't supposed to be the speaker.
 
prophet said:
Topical sermons aren't the problem.
Contextual divergence is.
If we believe in the Spirit, then we believe that contextual divergence is a spiritual problem.  The wanderer either has not the Spirit, or wasn't supposed to be the speaker.
Click to expand...


Good stuff.
 
Bravo said:
Exell said:
"rather than taking a book of the OT and going through it chapter by chapter or verse by verse."

Because they had a ministry of 'new revelation'. Why would we think that we should handle preaching in the same manner as those who had a ministry of new revelation, a ministry so odd that it was accompanied with signs and wonders to validate it?

I get that you are not against expository preaching, just as I am not against all topical preaching, I just think this argument for topical preaching has a few holes in it.
Click to expand...

Luke 24:27 KJV
[27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Click to expand...

This verse backs up topical preaching.  There was One topic: Jesus.  And that topic was backed up by scripture.  Topical.

The real problem is people abusing the Bible or not using it at all.
 
GeneFrenkle said:
Bravo said:
Exell said:
"rather than taking a book of the OT and going through it chapter by chapter or verse by verse."n

Because they had a ministry of 'new revelation'. Why would we think that we should handle preaching in the same manner as those who had a ministry of new revelation, a ministry so odd that it was accompanied with signs and wonders to validate it?

I get that you are not against expository preaching, just as I am not against all topical preaching, I just think this argument for topical preaching has a few holes in it.
Click to expand...

Luke 24:27 KJV
[27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Click to expand...

This verse backs up topical preaching.  There was One topic: Jesus.  And that topic was backed up by scripture.  Topical.

The real problem is people abusing the Bible or not using it at all.
Click to expand...
. Aye
 
I think the thread's title sums it up, as have other posts, quite succinctly.  Topical preaching that is anchored in a thorough search of scripture can be quite useful and helpful as Tom Brennan points out with his examples very well.  Verse by verse preaching through passages and books is at times needful.

The issue is what the speaker does with (or in many cases, doesn't) the text.  How weary and shallow are those times where a verse, or even a word is cherry picked to be used as a platform for the speaker's opinion or agenda. 

IFB's are famous for their criticisms of charismatics and others for the shallow emotionalism in preaching (justifiable for sure), but in reality that is all some of them have to share in their own offerings from scripture.



 
All preaching should be an "exposition" of Scripture. In his book "Biblical Preaching," Haddon Robinson refers to topical preaching as "Topical Exposition." The topic is traced through Scriptures that (in their proper context) support, define, illustrate, or add to the topic at hand. The problem with many in the IFB world is that they preach on biblical topics (like modesty) with un-biblical applications (Modesty = Women must wear pants, etc.). Without proper support for their applications, preachers resort to proof-texting, which does great violence to texts. Some, like Bob Gray's blog post, see no need to use any Scripture at all. Instead they believe that invoking the great preachers of the 20th century must carry the same weight as God's Word.

Topical/expository is not the greatest issue (although I lean toward an expository style with occasional topical sermons sprinkled in). Biblical/un-biblical is the real issue.

John MacArthur is one of my favorite preachers. On his GTY app, you may find sermons simply by looking up the Bible reference. He preaches through books of the Bible verse-by-verse as the norm. But you may also see sermons with a specific title with the text reference listed in a sub-heading. Some titles are accompanied by a specific passage (like 1Timothy 2:1-2), but other titles may state that the sermon is taken from "selected scriptures." Those are topical expositions of Scripture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top