Expository Apologetics by Voddie Bauchman

[Toasty]

I finished reading Bauchman's book, Expository Apologetics. Here is the link for more information: https://www.crossway.org/books/expository-apologetics-tpb/

He takes a presuppositionalist approach. He uses the principles of expository preaching and applies them to apologetics. The book clearly states that believers need to use the word of God to defend the faith. Believers must use the Bible to answer any objections they might hear. This does not necessarily mean that they have to quote Scripture verbatim 100% of time; it just means whatever objections we answer must be accordance in Scripture or taught by Scripture.

Bauchman speaks of the importance of learning the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. They will help us to articulate what we believe.

His method consists of showing the unbeliever that there are inconsistencies in his worldview, point out to the unbeliever that he is using borrowed capital, demonstrating that the Christian worldview is superior to any other worldview.

His style of preaching consists of expositing biblical passages, anticipating objections or questions a person might make, and answering those objections or questions. This reminds me of what the Apostle Paul did when he wrote the Book of Romans; he would ask rhetorical questions and answer them.

 

[TheOldCourse]

So is he basically arguing that all believers are called to preach (even if not from a pulpit)? Most Reformed proponents of "every member evangelism" at least attempt to make some qualitative distinction between ordained preaching and what a layman is authorized to do in evangelism (in accord with WLC 158), but it seems prima facie as if this type of approach erodes any such distinction, no?

 

[Toasty]

So is he basically arguing that all believers are called to preach (even if not from a pulpit)? Most Reformed proponents of "every member evangelism" at least attempt to make some qualitative distinction between ordained preaching and what a layman is authorized to do in evangelism (in accord with WLC 158), but it seems prima facie as if this type of approach erodes any such distinction, no?

He does not teach that all believers are called to preach. When he teaches that the principles of expository preaching are applied to apologetics, he means that we should use the Bible when answering people's objections to Christianity. Just as preaching involves answering objections with the Bible so apologetics involves answering objections with the Bible. However, this does not mean that apologetics is the same as preaching.

 

[TheOldCourse]

So is he basically arguing that all believers are called to preach (even if not from a pulpit)? Most Reformed proponents of "every member evangelism" at least attempt to make some qualitative distinction between ordained preaching and what a layman is authorized to do in evangelism (in accord with WLC 158), but it seems prima facie as if this type of approach erodes any such distinction, no?

He does not teach that all believers are called to preach. When he teaches that the principles of expository preaching are applied to apologetics, he means that we should use the Bible when answering people's objections to Christianity. Just as preaching involves answering objections with the Bible so apologetics involves answering objections with the Bible. However, this does not mean that apologetics is the same as preaching.

How would he differentiate it? When you say "he teaches that the pinciples of expository preaching are applied to apologetics", it sounds as if you're saying, apologetics becomes essentially preaching but under another name. I've often felt that contemporary writers struggle with maintaining the exclusivity of preaching to the office, but this seems to blur the lines even further and I'm just curious as to whether he addresses the issue and if so, how.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

He does not make the distinction plain, but I think he knows there is one:

"When we preach or teach, when we witness to a stranger, or when we are making disciples in our home or church, it is important to keep this definition in mind. We stand before people who have been bombarded every day of their lives by philosophies of life that contradict Christianity."

Baucham Jr., Voddie (2015-10-31). Expository Apologetics: Answering Objections with the Power of the Word (Kindle Locations 213-215). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

But he does not seem to separate conversations wherein apologetics is used and actual preaching:

"Don’t get me wrong. I am all for evangelism. There is no doubt that we must preach the gospel and make disciples (Matt. 28: 18– 20). I am not suggesting for a moment that evangelism is anything less than a priority in our conversations with people. However, I am suggesting a more subtle, and I believe, more productive and natural way to get to the gospel."

ibid. (Kindle Locations 2266-2268)

"Nor is the goal here to give an instructional on preaching and teaching, per se. The nuts and bolts of expository apologetics are the same here as they are in the individual encounter to which we have given so much attention to this point."

ibid. (Kindle Locations 2533-2535)

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Given the movement Baucham leads, it would not seem strange to suggest he blurs a high view of ordained preaching with the evangelistic responsibilities of parents and others in the culture at large. I look forward to more information.

 

[ZackF]

I finished reading Bauchman's book, Expository Apologetics. Here is the link for more information: https://www.crossway.org/books/expository-apologetics-tpb/

He takes a presuppositionalist approach. He uses the principles of expository preaching and applies them to apologetics. The book clearly states that believers need to use the word of God to defend the faith. Believers must use the Bible to answer any objections they might hear. This does not necessarily mean that they have to quote Scripture verbatim 100% of time; it just means whatever objections we answer must be accordance in Scripture or taught by Scripture.

Bauchman speaks of the importance of learning the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. They will help us to articulate what we believe.

His method consists of showing the unbeliever that there are inconsistencies in his worldview, point out to the unbeliever that he is using borrowed capital, demonstrating that the Christian worldview is superior to any other worldview.

His style of preaching consists of expositing biblical passages, anticipating objections or questions a person might make, and answering those objections or questions. This reminds me of what the Apostle Paul did when he wrote the Book of Romans; he would ask rhetorical questions and answer them.

I've found Mr. Bauchman's lectures helpful. He has been especially courageous being one of the few black pastors to refute the whole "gay is the new black" narrative. Thanks for this bit. This book is going into my queue.

 

[Toasty]

So is he basically arguing that all believers are called to preach (even if not from a pulpit)? Most Reformed proponents of "every member evangelism" at least attempt to make some qualitative distinction between ordained preaching and what a layman is authorized to do in evangelism (in accord with WLC 158), but it seems prima facie as if this type of approach erodes any such distinction, no?

He does not teach that all believers are called to preach. When he teaches that the principles of expository preaching are applied to apologetics, he means that we should use the Bible when answering people's objections to Christianity. Just as preaching involves answering objections with the Bible so apologetics involves answering objections with the Bible. However, this does not mean that apologetics is the same as preaching.

How would he differentiate it? When you say "he teaches that the pinciples of expository preaching are applied to apologetics", it sounds as if you're saying, apologetics becomes essentially preaching but under another name. I've often felt that contemporary writers struggle with maintaining the exclusivity of preaching to the office, but this seems to blur the lines even further and I'm just curious as to whether he addresses the issue and if so, how.

He assumes that there is one.

When he discusses the principles of expository preaching applied to apologetics, he is talking about using the Bible when answering objections to the Christian faith. I think he is talking about some of the principles, not all of the principles. Apologetics does not necessarily become preaching. Preaching has to do with an authoritative proclamation of the gospel. Doing apologetics does not mean that one is preaching. One can talk with his neighbor across the street about the gospel, but this is not the same as preaching.