# Preaching



## Scott (Oct 3, 2006)

What is preaching? How does it differ from teaching?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 3, 2006)

Teaching is talking and preaching is shouting.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 3, 2006)

I wrote this in another thread:


> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The puritans, blessed precisionists that they were, distinguished Preaching (used in the Scriptures) as a technical term from all other forms of speaking. That is the distinction that I believe VH is getting at. The terminology was borrowed from the language of civil law and government. Caesar (or kings) had "heralds." These were not mailmen. They were mouthpieces, officers of the government. When they spoke authoritatively they spoke with the voice of Caesar. That authoritative speech was Caesar speaking. It was called "heralding" or "proclaiming". In our Bibles the words are "preach" and "preaching". They had no other authority. They could not say anything they weren't authorized to say.
> 
> Preachers are Jesus' heralds. They have an official commision (ordination) and a specific message--the gospel. No one but a herald could speak with the authority of Caesar. No one but a preacher can speak with the authority of Christ. But Joe can tell you what he heard the herald say. He can tell you what he read off the placard that the city officials nailed up after the herald read it. And Joe can tell you what the preacher said on Sunday, and that he'll be back next Sunday to say it again. And he can tell you what he read in the Bible.
> ...


And from the 2nd Helvetic Confession


> The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God.
> 
> Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.
> 
> Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written "And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me" (Jer. 31:34), and "Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Cor. 3:7). For although "no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father" (John 6:4), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, "He shall tell you what you ought to do."



[Edited on 10-3-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 3, 2006)

Like things I shall not mention, I can't describe the difference, but I know it when I see it!

Preaching is, In my humble opinion, proclamation. It is the heralding forth of a message, a royal announcement. Insofar as it is true to God's word, "The preaching of the Word of God IS the Word of God" (2d Helvetic Confession).

The best preaching is, of course, didactic. But, it also aims at conviction. It is aimed at the heart, through the mind. It is apostolic in character and calls people towards conviction.

Teaching, while it certainly does not ignore the heart, is the conveying of information. FOr instance, if you were teaching on the book of Matthew, you might go into things like when it was written, and to whom, and how we know these things, etc etc. Those things ought to undergird preaching, certainly, and may be brought in as illustrative detail, but preaching presses forth the grand questions "Why," and "So what?" 

The structure of preaching is governed by several considerations, chief among which is the text proclaimed itself. But, the best Reformed preaching is expository, doxological, experiential, and Christo-centric. TO translate: it brings forth a text, calls down the glory of God, presses itself into the recesses of the human heart and life, and is centered in the cross. Moreover, it is invested with a divine power that mere instruction does not have.

Call me ! IN fact, his book Preaching and Preachers brings forth these ideas in far greater detail and eloquence than I can muster.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 3, 2006)

Bruce! 

Much could be said (and has been said) about the nature of preaching. The Westminster Assembly spoke to the nature of preaching in WLC 159 and distinguished preaching and teaching in the Form of Presbyterian Church Government (office of doctor vs. office of pastor), as discussed somewhat in this thread. Hence, for example, catechising or seminary instruction falls under the category of teaching but not preaching, though there is a close relationship between teaching and preaching (preaching includes teaching, but teaching does not necessarily mean preaching). Also see this thread on preaching as the Word of God.

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Kevin (Oct 3, 2006)

A well known indy-fundy preacher from Atlanta was telling a story to a group of men one day after chuch.

His 5/6 year old daughter was listening in on his humorus tale and finally she spoke up and said; "daddy is that a true story, or are you just preaching?"

True story


----------



## Scott (Oct 3, 2006)

> Teaching is talking and preaching is shouting.


----------



## Scott (Oct 3, 2006)

Bruce: Awesome response. 

Can you (or anyone) point me to any online resources that talk about preaching in this way? That is such a different perspective from so many evangelicals who see offices not in terms of authority but in terms of convenience. To them everybody is a hearld of Caeser with the exact same authority.


----------



## KenPierce (Oct 3, 2006)

Scott,

William Still's The Work of the Pastor, if you can find it.

DM Lloyd-Jones Preaching and Preachers

Fairbairn's Pastoral Theology

And, surprisingly enough, Preaching, by Fred B. Craddock. You have to overlook Craddock's bizarre Barthian cum evangelicalism. YEt, despite that, he gets the essence of preaching right.


----------



## Archlute (Oct 3, 2006)

Also, Scott, if you can get a copy of William Perkins' _The Art of Prophesying_, a Puritan Paperback published by BofT, you will find this issue addressed. Many have heard of TAoP, but do not realize that this is only half of the book! The second part is entitled _The Calling of the Ministry_, which includes sections of disscussion upon the office, commission, and authority of true ministers. 

Regarding the above discussion on office, Perkins would agree that the office of Gospel preaching properly belongs to the recognized minister, but that in the absence of one, the responsibility would rightly (though irregularly) be set upon the laity of the church (pp.104, 113) - "In these (unusual) circumstances (when there are no ministers) a knowledgable and godly individual becomes a minister either to himself or to someone else." (p.113, para. 2).


Regarding the power and motives behind good preaching he writes on p.117:



> Some preach out of a fear of the law, to avoid criticism or punishment; others preach because it is fashionable, in order to be liked by others; some do it for show, to win credit and praise; others do it out of ambition, to rise in the world. But if they do, they are forgetting their commission, which is: _Deliver a man from hell._ This should be the aim of their preaching.



Now, certainly, there are other aims in preaching, but as far as a motivating quote goes, this one is hard to beat!

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by Archlute]


----------



## Scott (Oct 3, 2006)

I found this short essay by former Presbyterian in a search for authority in preaching: By What Authority Do You Preach?. Responses in terms of authority?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 3, 2006)

Actually, he claims (unless I missed something) to have been ordained a Congregationalist. And he admits that he was beginning from a position of autonomy, and not with any sense of searching for what faithful church he might be connected to and submissive to. So, he was in a mistake to begin with, In my humble opinion, and had nothing to fall back to when certain things he came to see as errors (right or wrong) convicted him.

The point of seeking the meaning of the text from the text first of all, is because it is the duty of each man to listen to the Voice of his Good Shepherd. And the Man of God should have been well-prepared to do this task better than anyone else in a given church. The point of listening to commentators is that we are not suppposed to be doing our work in a vacuum, but acknowledging the "church-context" of our work. We are supposed to be checking with others "did you hear what I heard? OK. Now I feel a little safer preaching this." The fact that any number of preachers might be preaching contradictory things will not tell you that any one of them is right. And neither will an appeal to one single church body, even one with great antiquity. Rome's doctrines are a tissue of contradictions, even over her history. She affirms today what she denied yesterday. So she is unreliable.

To abandon one's duty to be an immediate hearer of Christ, and to adopt the view that one must do nothing, except parrot the doctrine "officially mediated" through the church organs, is to grant to men ultimate authority, which is Christ's alone. It is important to be aligned with the right church, or the best church, but not so that one will finally be positioned to receive the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. But rather, so that he will share in the Great Commission to preach the One Message with those who are likewise commissioned. The accrediting of the messenger is not a point of triviality.

Apostolic succession, so far as it is defined by Rome and the EO, is a myth. It cannot be proved or demonstrated. It is a belief. And part of the myth itself is obscured by illegitimate popes, anti-popes, multiple popes. De Sale's efforts ultimately were a waste of time, not only because his arguments were specious, but because he did not win back many converts from Geneva. The Reformers had done their job well, and that city saw through the empty claims of the anti-Reformer. They had the ministry of the Word (and Sacrament). All he had was the ministry of the Sacraments (all 7) and vacuous platitudes that promised saftey for souls in the care of the priesthood.

The idea that the authority of the church is resident in the bishop (one man) and in all the bishops, like little lords over their respective domains, and down to appointed priests, is fictitious. Jesus is the only Head of the church. The imperial model of church government is an unbiblical importation. The authority of the Jesus is ministerially exercised in the church--whether that church is considered (on limited occasions) as all the people in the church, or the Session (Ruling _and_ teaching elders, ordinary exercise), or the church gathered as Presbytery or higher court (again, Rulers and Teachers). It is Jesus alone who exercises authority in the church, in and by his Word and Spirit, _and in no other way is authority exercised_.

The test for whether a church bears apostolic authority is tied inextricably to whether the church preaches the apostolic gospel. The reformers left Rome, or were expelled by Rome, because Rome was _and is_ *devoid* of the Christian gospel. So they have a _tradition_ of leadership-continuity (unproved and unprovable). So what, if they have not the gospel?

It is more than interesting that Paul warned the ROMAN CHURCH to be careful lest they be "broken off." That the Roman Church declares today such a thing not only didn't happen, but is impossible, tells the observer all he needs to know about her pretended claims to right by antiquity. (thank you, Doug Wilson, for that insight from almost a decade ago--credit where it is due)


----------



## Ivan (Oct 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by KenPierce_
> Call me ! IN fact, his book Preaching and Preachers brings forth these ideas in far greater detail and eloquence than I can muster.



Best book on the subject of preaching ever!


----------



## MW (Oct 3, 2006)

I would be wary of a technical separation of teaching from preaching. 2 Tim. 4:2 places doctrine or teaching within the function of preaching. And, in relation to another thread, that is where it places exhortation also.


----------



## Scott (Oct 4, 2006)

Here is a good article by Joe Pipa in the Greenville Presbyterian Seminary site that expands on the thoughts Bruce outlined earlier: Preaching: The Major Medium.


Unfortunately the PDF link is down so we cannot get to the footnotes.

Scott


----------



## bookslover (Oct 11, 2006)

One thing that has always bugged me is when people refer to a sermon as a "message". "Great message today, pastor!"

A "message" can be anything from skywriting to scribbling some sweet young thing's phone number down on a wet cocktail napkin in a cheap bar - and everything in between.

But a "sermon" is a particular type of well-defined message. I like the term "sermon" and wish people would use it more than they do.

But, then, that's just me...


----------

