Do you believe in the Redemptive-Historical model of preaching?

[CharlieJ]

Okay, then I'm confused as to what other preaching there is. Expository and Topical are the two I'm familiar with.

Let's put it this way. Expository preaching is all about developing a passage in its context. RH is a type of expository preaching that is particularly sensitive of a passage's broader context, that of it being a part of God's big story. Thus, in RH methodology, the preacher has the responsibility (at some point in the message) of zooming out of that particular text to relate it to Christ and the gospel.

So, instead of the story of David and Bathsheba being about guarding your heart from lust and the consequences of adultery, it becomes a story about David as a type of Christ. He is king, yet he cannot be the hope of Israel because he sins. Christ the true king is always faithful to His bride and we can put our hope in Him because He perfectly fulfilled all righteousness for our salvation. Additionally, we can obey Him as our perfect authority knowing His faithful love for us.

You can see that the tricky part is balancing the immediate and broader contexts. Too much immediacy tends to lead to moralism or commentary preaching; too much broad context makes every text essentially the same message or results in forcing Christ into a text in an inappropriate way. It's tough!

My favorite book so far on the issue is Dennis Johnson's Him We Proclaim. I like it because he's thought long and hard about the possible weaknesses of the method and has worked to avoid them.

 

[Knoxienne]

So, instead of the story of David and Bathsheba being about guarding your heart from lust and the consequences of adultery, it becomes a story about David as a type of Christ. He is king, yet he cannot be the hope of Israel because he sins. Christ the true king is always faithful to His bride and we can put our hope in Him because He perfectly fulfilled all righteousness for our salvation. Additionally, we can obey Him as our perfect authority knowing His faithful love for us.

You can see that the tricky part is balancing the immediate and broader contexts. Too much immediacy tends to lead to moralism or commentary preaching; too much broad context makes every text essentially the same message or results in forcing Christ into a text in an inappropriate way. It's tough!

My favorite book so far on the issue is Dennis Johnson's Him We Proclaim. I like it because he's thought long and hard about the possible weaknesses of the method and has worked to avoid them.

Very helpful! Yes, after listening and studying for years I can certainly tell it's tough. And it certainly explains why hermeneutics is a science and an art. Thanks also for the book recommendation.

 

[Augusta]

I attend a church that is kinda BT central. The seminary run out of our church building is very focused on RH preaching and Vos is highly thought of and revered. When done properly it is very edifying and I love the Christocentricity of it. I love that the gospel is preached no matter what the text is. I am sometimes amazed at correlations between OT and NT that I have never connected.

Yes, sometimes I think there is some reaching going on and the gospel is sort of shoe-horned in there or the broader point is sort of weak. I don't think even the most gifted preacher is going to accomplish it with finesse every time. I sit under a lot of it. I have sometimes wished for more application. I still need to read Biblical Theology by Vos. It is on my nightstand.

 

[Romans922]

No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching

Would you define moralistic preaching? I always thought moralism was the humanistic teaching, "Be good for goodness sake". Just trying to understand.

Moralism is "Dare to be a Daniel," or "What are the smooth stones in your life to slay the giants in your life," basically using the lives of biblical characters and telling the people they are examples for the listener to emulate. This is too much pressure to put on the hearers of the Word since Abraham, Moses, David, etc. are all types of Christ and reducing the narratives of these people, or even of Christ for that matter, to something we should imitate misses the whole point of the Bible. To tell listeners to imitate Christ, or a type of Christ, out of their own strength reduces the gospel to ethical effort.

You are sounding a lot like Miles Van Pelt. Great guy, theology --> Klinian.

I'm preaching through 1 Samuel and I have often times said, "here is where you are to be like David or like Samuel" WHY? Because David and Samuel were doing exactly what they should've done. Other places they sin, so it is commanded not to live like them in that way.

Wait? Are we not supposed to be like Christ? Are we not supposed to be holy as he is holy? Yes, we are, we are commanded to be righteous like Christ. Where on earth then in preaching would anyone say that we are to be righteous like Christ on our own efforts. One who says that doesn't understand the gospel itself. Only by Christ's righteousness can we live a holy life. Only by virtue of our union with Christ and the Holy Spirit working in our hearts.

That's clear, but at the same time, how often does Paul/Peter, others command Live like ME! Paul says often even commands Timothy to be a good example for the flock. Why? So they would live like them. No doubt we are to live righteous lives like Paul, and he commands you how to do it.

We are to live Like Christ, and he commands you how to do it. And he gives you great examples of it throughout Scripture (he also gives you BAD examples everywhere in Scripture). I can say easily "Dare to Be a David" Dare to be like David in His life when he desired the Lord and didn't fear man/Saul, when he lived to follow God's commands and didn't shrink back.

Unless of course we are to live in the fear of men and not follow God's commands.

So I am not a moralist, I might never specifically say "Dare to be a David" although I will command all people to live like David when he trusted in God when all his circumstances declared that he would perish. Why? Because they can do it! Those who are in Christ can do it, because they have the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. Do I believe in Redemptive Historical Preaching? I believe it exists. Is it the best method? Absolutely not! What the Puritans did (I.e. THE PURITAN BOARD) is a much better way. What is the text say in its context and what does that have to do with the people who are hearing it through the preaching of the Word that they might believe the Gospel and live it out in their lives. Scripture is the only rule for FAITH (Salvation) and PRACTICE (Life).

 

[puritanpilgrim]

What's the preaching called where every text has three points, two illustrations and a joke?

 

[Bookmeister]

You are sounding a lot like Miles Van Pelt. Great guy, theology --> Klinian.

What exactly is wrong with this?

 

[Michael Butterfield]

What's the preaching called where every text has three points, two illustrations and a joke?

SBC

 

[LadyFlynt]

So...

Preaching the Gospel vs a Pep Talk

 

[Michael Butterfield]

You are sounding a lot like Miles Van Pelt. Great guy, theology --> Klinian.

What exactly is wrong with this?

You are sounding like MVP and yes we who graduated from RTS love him immensely. He is one of, if not the best "teacher" (as opposed to a lecturer) RTS Jackson has. He not only loves his students, but he actually wants them to learn something from him and the will give them his time. MVP also has more passion than you can shake a stick at. He is in this way amazing! However, we have all heard his "Dare to be a Daniel" speech and he is right, but that is not what Applicatory/Experimental Calvinism preaching is about. Yes, he has likely heard reformed men use such in their preaching, but it is not the rule. He does have the tendency in this are to draw caricatures as well, but that is, in my never to be humble opinion, his Klinian blind spot. This is not about MVP. However, if you want to be a preacher listen to Dr. Thomas and Dr. Jussely. I would send you to Dr. Curry, but you are too late for him. These are men who use RH and GH in their sermons, but it is not a "model" of preaching for them, it is a tool of preaching. There is a huge difference. If you want to give a good lecture then use RH as a model; if you want to preach use the applicatory--experimental Calvinism model of preaching. I have not seen one book on this thread that even mentions what could be read on the subject. Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric; Preaching With Purpose; Truth Applied; Preaching With Spiritual Vigour; Preaching Pure and Simple; The Art of Prophesying; An Earnest Ministry: The Want of the Times to name a few