# Expository, verse-by-verse preaching



## turmeric (Feb 26, 2005)

This seems to be sort of a Dispensational thing, but I miss it sometimes. It seems like a good way for people to learn about what Scripture means. Does anyone know why the Reformed tend not to use this method? Does it have a good effect, or is it a sort of cloud without rain?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 26, 2005)

> Does anyone know why the Reformed tend not to use this method?



Something I've often wondered as well. One thing I've learned though, is that most dispie churches that go verse by verse do not reflect back to the other places in scripture that relate to the passage being studied.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 26, 2005)

Is this a Dispensational thing? The Reconstructionist church which I was in for a while preached that the historic/Redemptive method was a betrayal of the Reformed doctrines, and that it was even sinful. It was mocked and ridiculed from the pulpit. This man believed in the expository method, to exclusion of all others, was the way to go. This was a Reconstructionist, whose claim to fame is their adamant opposition to Dispensationalism.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 26, 2005)

All I know is that Calvary Chapel tries to claim it as their invention


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 26, 2005)

There is some really good Reformed preaching going on out there that is similar to the verse-by-verse expository method. I would call it rather "consecutive, expository preaching." Some differences I see would be, in Reformed preaching:
1) a willingness (generally) to take "shorter" sections of the Bible to preach through; this is a "pastoral" issue as much as anything else
2) treating of the "telos" or purpose of any given preaching portion from within that section, rather than a "commentary" approach
3) superior handling of narrative portions
4) a covenant-theology approach that is more fully orbed (thus taking, as Adam mentioned above, a whole-revelation approach to "unpacking" a text)
5) discovering and preaching Christ through the text, rather than tacking on a "come-to-Christ" invitation at the end

The consecutive, expository approach lends itself to preaching the whole counsel of God (can't skip this "uncomfortable" place!), and allows the Spirit-inspired logic and flow of the biblical penman's thought to drive the train of exegesis out of which flows the message to be preached.

I wish you could have heard some of the messages preached through the story of Abraham by our former pastor. You never heard a more thorough presentation of the message of the text and verses themselves, _*suffused*_ with the Lord Jesus and with applicatory exhortations. His messages begun on the book of 1 Thessalonians were equally powerful. I only pray that 30 years from now, I might be half the preacher he became over that span.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 26, 2005)

Bruce, and everyone:

I was in a Presbyterian church setting for a while, and we receieved the Word in the expository method. It was good. At times I missed the Dutch method. Now I am back in the Dutch setting, and at times I miss the Presbyterian method. I see no reason why a church has to be tied to the one and exclude the other. There is a time and a place to the Word fitly spoken. 

Josh:

Would you call Jonathan Edwards a dispensationalist?


----------



## JohnV (Feb 26, 2005)

Me too. I'm with you, Josh. That's the question that popped into my head.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 26, 2005)

That was my bad. I"m not sure it's a Dispensational thing, just heard of it through Calvary Chapel & other Dispensational preachers here in town use it, one of them is actually pretty good, as long as he stays out of the prophetic books! A lot of them use it, I hear it on the radio a lot. I agree with a historic/redemptive Christological emphasis and I love what our pastor does, which is probably law/Gospel, not sure, I just can hear my Inner Dispensationist saying, they don't do it because they're afraid of some texts! I'm sure that's not true but I know some individuals who would say that to me if they went to my church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 26, 2005)

Labelling is not going to work here. You have to describe the whole thing, because "expository preaching" as a _phrase_ could just as easily describe the Puritan approach. If you look at, say, Manton's commentary on James, you find that it is simply his reworked sermon material (from weekday lectures). Calvin's sermons, as prototypical of the Puritans generally, was actually far simpler in form than their later development, and much closer to the verse-by-verse method he used in his weekday lectures (which also became his commentaries), and thus to the modern style. Calvin's homily-style sermon, however, was vastly superior (In my humble opinion) to today's "lesson style," that often simply resemble Bible-study, and not exhortation. Calvin was a better preacher than Zwingli, whom I would call a "forebear" (but not the "father") of the modern verse-by-verse method.

Which brings up the question, why is the Bible-study presentation moderately succesful at bringing in the people? Because people are hungry for the Word! So much garbage is out there, that when peple stumble on somebody preaching the Word, they are attracted to it. This is what happened in Zurich with Zwingli. Simply presenting Matthew to the populace was _revolutionary,_ and brought out partisans on both sides. But it is retrograde to go back to Zwingli, unless you plan to once again progress to Calvin and to the Puritans.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 26, 2005)

Don't we need both? Surely we need Bible-study. When should we have it? Maybe I need to understand what preaching is actually for. I'm still evolving out of Jellyfish-ness.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 26, 2005)

Bruce:

I agree with you on your assessment. However, the distinction is not the methodology here as much as it is a matter of the importance of the office of minister of the Word. The Calvary Chapel does not recognize that position or office. So their expositsions are strictly classroom style speaches or lectures, only on a simpler level for the congregation. That is entirely different than the difference between the two styles. 

It seems, from what you say, that there is a time and a place for each method. And the purpose of the Word for the congregation ought to take precedence over favouritism to a methodology. This is my sentiment too.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 26, 2005)

I know that many reconstructionists (or those who would be called that today), employ typological or Redemptive-Historical methods. Peter Leithart, for one.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 26, 2005)

The danger, I think, in pure expository preaching verse by verse is becoming myopic, getting into word etymologies too much, and not bringing the whole force of Scripture to bear upon a specific passage.

It tends to forget that when Paul penned Romans he had the entire OT in his thinking being brought to bear upon that epistle/time.

The other danger is if you just go verse by verse and are preaching through say Romans and your at say Romans 1:18-ff for "this" Sunday and end there - you've left your congregation in quite a terror for the rest of the week.

But I wasn't aware that it was a Dispensational. thing only, just plain ignorant of that I suppose. But it does give me pause to think now.

ldh


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 27, 2005)

My perspective is that Expository Preaching is the historic Reformed approach to preaching. Consecutive preaching through the Bible, verse by verse, is the pattern that we in Calvin's sermons and many others from that age, and I think that is the ideal model. 

The Dispensational and/or fundamentalistic approach, from my own experience, is to take isolated texts out of context and make them a pretext, which is nothing like Expository Preaching. 

Here was the Westminster Assembly suggests in terms of model preaching: http://www.covenanter.org/Westminster/directoryforpublicworship.htm#preachingoftheword


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 27, 2005)

Generally speaking, expositiory preaching is logical. Much like a treasure map, sequential rendering will be the most faithful to truth. Topical approaches even have expositiorial basis at it's foundation. I like expositioial w/ topical approaches once monthly for the sake of explaining doctrine more clearly.

[Edited on 2-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 27, 2005)

> My perspective is that Expository Preaching is the historic Reformed approach to preaching. Consecutive preaching through the Bible, verse by verse, is the pattern that we in Calvin's sermons and many others from that age, and I think that is the ideal model.
> 
> The Dispensational and/or fundamentalistic approach, from my own experience, is to take isolated texts out of context and make them a pretext, which is nothing like Expository Preaching.



That's a pretty good way to describe it, I'd have to agree.

lh


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 27, 2005)

An outstanding resource on the history of preaching is the multivolume work, _The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church,_ by Hughes Oliphant Old. This collection is a treasure, as it takes you through the different eras of the church, through its high and low points, as far as the place of the Word in worship. What accelerated downrade that the late middle ages experienced in the place of the Word in worship, the Reformation age revived in true historic form. HHO is perhaps better known for his _The Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship,_ in which he shows that the Reformers were very much interested in recapturing an older, ancient and venerable piety that the Roman institution had all but eliminated.

In the _RPSWCC_ series, he shows how the _lectio continua_ or consecutive preaching through the Bible has the highest pedigree. I highly recommend this ongoing series, at least through volume 4, _The Age of the Reformation,_ and the following two volumes (probably the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively) will most likely be must-read material as well.

As for the final projected volume, I'm not sure how a Princeton professor's treatment of 20th century preaching will go down my throat, but I'll probably get it as well, if it ever goes to print.


----------



## ARStager (Feb 27, 2005)

There's no reason why _lectio continua_ preaching can't also be historical-redemptive.

[Edited on 2-27-2005 by ARStager]

[Edited on 2-27-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## Presbyrino (Feb 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> All I know is that Calvary Chapel tries to claim it as their invention


:bigsmile:


Some dispensationalists (especially Calvary Chapel's) claim alot of their things as well:
*Recovering the Bible
*Teaching the Bible 'Literally'
*Rightly Dividing the Word
*Teaching the true interpretation of the Prophetic books of the 
bible
*Having the "true balance" between Calvinism and Arminianism


----------



## JohnV (Feb 27, 2005)

Thanks, Steve. I wanted to say that too. 

In our Dutch circles we have what we call Catechism Sermons. We take a Lord's Day from the Heidelberg Catechism (there are 52 to coincide with the 52 Sundays we have most years) and have a sermon on it. It is not normally devoid of exposition, but it can sometimes be centred more on the Catechism than on Scripture. Its not how it should be sometimes, but still I think it is a very good practice in the way of educating the congregation. When we do this, we take time to explain why we baptize children, why we have a Covenant of Grace, why we fence the Lord's Table, etc. This takes in Scripture, and not just one verse in context within a passage, but various and sometimes many other verses as well. 

The other sermon for the day may be a topical one, or it may delve into a text within context. Whenever we concetrate on a particular text it is always done by spending time on the surrounding texts, and beginning by reading the entire context, even if it takes a bit more reading to do so. 

I think it is impossible to do this type of thing without exposition of some kind. And an expository sermon is supposed to be that exclusively. But I think the counterpart is also true, that it is impossible to do an expository sermon without some topical-izing going on. All in all, what is right is that the covenant and the gospel are preached to the people and to those who have ventured into the service.

[Edited on 2-28-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 27, 2005)

> We take a Lord's Day from the Heidelberg Catechism (there are 52 to coincide with the 52 Sundays we have most years) and have a sermon on it. It is not normally devoid of exposition, but it can sometimes be centred more on the Catechism than on Scripture. Its not how it should be sometimes, but still I think it is a very good practice in the way of educating the congregation. When we this, we take time to explain why we baptize children, why we have a Covenant of Grace, why we fence the Lord's Table, etc. This takes in Scripture, and not just one verse in context within a passage, but various, and sometimes many, other verses as well.



That's very cool John, I like that!


----------



## JohnV (Feb 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> 
> 
> > We take a Lord's Day from the Heidelberg Catechism (there are 52 to coincide with the 52 Sundays we have most years) and have a sermon on it. It is not normally devoid of exposition, but it can sometimes be centred more on the Catechism than on Scripture. Its not how it should be sometimes, but still I think it is a very good practice in the way of educating the congregation. When we this, we take time to explain why we baptize children, why we have a Covenant of Grace, why we fence the Lord's Table, etc. This takes in Scripture, and not just one verse in context within a passage, but various, and sometimes many, other verses as well.
> ...



Yeah, it's cool. I like it too. But I like the other too. Its cool too. 

Like I said before, Adam, when I was in the one setting I missed the other. That's because there is a difference, and the two types tend to be exclusive of the other, as far as being the favourite method is concerned. When I find a church that does both, and does them well, I let you know.


----------

