# Homiletic method



## Edwards (Sep 4, 2017)

Hi
What is the best homiletic method in a nutshell?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 4, 2017)

Lectio continua expositional preaching.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Edwards (Sep 4, 2017)

Sincere thanks! I appreciate the feedback. A follow up question...What are the best books on preaching?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2017)

Dabney, Shedd, Perkins, T. David Gordon, Tim Keller (yes, his book on preaching is actually quite good), Hughes Oliphant Old's history of preaching, and Dennis Johnson.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 5, 2017)

To your first question, I'd suggest that the mainstay should be verse-by-verse exposition. However, there is a legitimate place for an occasional topical/theological sermon/series. So, I'd suggest that the norm is lectio continua, occasionally punctuated with topical/theological sermons. 

(For example, I'm about to conclude the Gospel of Mark after nearly a year in it. For October, since there are 5 Sundays, I'll be doing a series on the "Solas of the Reformation" to underscore why those concepts were crucial then, and vital now.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edwards (Sep 5, 2017)

Heartfelt thanks to you for the input I do appreciate it very much!! Will take a look at the books you suggested and lectio continua as the general norm. Is there anyone still using Perkins' method today? I'll be interested to know. Sincere thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 5, 2017)

Edwards said:


> Is there anyone still using Perkins' method today?



If they aren't, they've abandoned expository preaching.

See some examples here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jw (Sep 5, 2017)

Edwards said:


> Hi
> What is the best homiletic method in a nutshell?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are we all ignoring the obvious here?

First, I'd like to know what preacher's gonna fit in a nutshell?!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Cymro (Sep 5, 2017)

If his name is Coco, he could do it!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## BGF (Sep 5, 2017)

Joshua said:


> Are we all ignoring the obvious here?
> 
> First, I'd like to know what preacher's gonna fit in a nutshell?!


Perhaps a small town pastor of a small church in one our fine presbyterian micro-denominations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edwards (Sep 6, 2017)

I appreciate the feedback and links...will take a look at them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Sep 6, 2017)

I actually think we need _less_ verse-by-verse exposition and _more_ theological preaching. I worry sometimes about how much basic theology any given congregation actually knows. There are some pretty ignorant Christians out there - even Reformed Christians - even though many have sat under verse-by-verse preaching for many years.

Spurgeon, of course, comes to mind. Taking a text instead of going through a book. You can get a lot of good theology from his sermons, plus you can find at least one sermon from almost every book of the Bible (and he's usually careful to give you the context of the verse he's taking before he launches out). How many guys who spend three years grinding through Galatians will be able to say that at the end of their ministries?

I once heard John MacArthur preach a theological sermon. Each point he made was bathed in Scripture, but the sermon was about a specific point of theology. I think we need more of that - a _lot_ more of that.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edwards (Sep 6, 2017)

Very helpful and challenging thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KBorg (Sep 6, 2017)

Put five different preachers in the room and you'll likely get six different homiletical methods. I'm probably not popular for saying it, but even saying methods like "expository preaching" aren't, at least in practice, helpful to me. Even among the most ardent expository preachers of our day there's a practical difference. John MacArthur's preaching isn't that much like John Piper's and both differ from Lloyd-Jones, and DA Carson once said that if you take eight years to preach through Romans (ahem...Piper) you've likely not preached expositionally. There's a lot to be gleaned from good homiletical books and I'd especially recommend Lloyd-Jones _Preaching and Preachers_ and Spurgeon's _Lectures to My Students_. But at the end of the day I think the very best method is the statement on preaching in the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship...it can't be topped. Cheers!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 6, 2017)

Yes, Westminster's Directory for Public Worship is a good summary. It follows Perkins, and is more hashed out by Peter VanMastricht's work, The Best Method of Preaching; which every minister preaching should read, study and use. Its published by RHB for pennies. Then there is Vinet's masterful work, which everyone (like Dabney, Bridges, Plumer, Taylor, etc.) quotes exstensively, but we are about half way through publishing it. (Look for that in October.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Sep 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I actually think we need _less_ verse-by-verse exposition and _more_ theological preaching. I worry sometimes about how much basic theology any given congregation actually knows. There are some pretty ignorant Christians out there - even Reformed Christians - even though many have sat under verse-by-verse preaching for many years.
> 
> Spurgeon, of course, comes to mind. Taking a text instead of going through a book. You can get a lot of good theology from his sermons, plus you can find at least one sermon from almost every book of the Bible (and he's usually careful to give you the context of the verse he's taking before he launches out). How many guys who spend three years grinding through Galatians will be able to say that at the end of their ministries?
> 
> I once heard John MacArthur preach a theological sermon. Each point he made was bathed in Scripture, but the sermon was about a specific point of theology. I think we need more of that - a _lot_ more of that.


Robert, I know you are a Presbyterian; but are you talking about the type of preaching associated with Heidelberg Catechism preaching?


----------



## Edwards (Sep 6, 2017)

Thanks for the comments and the reference to the Westminster directory for publick worship. Will also take a look at VanMastrich and Vinet. Enjoyed listening to some of your preaching Matthew! Sincere thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Sep 6, 2017)

yeutter said:


> Robert, I know you are a Presbyterian; but are you talking about the type of preaching associated with Heidelberg Catechism preaching?



I don't know who Robert is, but I'm thinking somewhat along those lines, although I think theological preaching, like verse-by-verse preaching, should be done straight from the Scriptures. This would be more work (or at least a different kind of work) than verse-by-verse preaching but, as I wrote before, I think it's necessary. Again, Spurgeon (and others, of course) shows that there is real value in the "taking a text" (for lack of a better title) approach.

I admit I go back and forth on the subject of preaching from the Heidelberger (or other texts of that type). I see the value of it, but it sort of bugs me that they're preaching from a man-made document, not the Scriptures (although their sermons are always larded with Scripture). Doesn't seem to bother the Dutch side of the Reformed world; they've been fine with it for several centuries now. I do find Theodorus Vandergroe's two-volume exposition of the HC very edifying. As I say, I'm a little torn on the subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 6, 2017)

I cannot find the reference at the moment, but I have in my notes a Puritan model of preaching that was both expositional and theological. I believe it followed the pattern of text, context, doctrine, application ... so that in each exposition the doctrinal points are intentionally lifted out of that day's passage, not taken for granted. And the application then winds up always as applied theology, rather than using the narrative solely as model for daily life. I want to say Packer wrote an article on it ... someone here may know what I'm thinking of.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 7, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim Keller (yes, his book on preaching is actually quite good),


I thought a good Puritan man would put Martyn Lloyd-Jones "Preaching and Preachers" ahead of Keller.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 7, 2017)

I put Perkins ahead of Keller, Stephen. So I believe that keeps my Puritan bona fides intact.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 7, 2017)

If one wants to be "encouraged" to preach better, then Lloyd-Jones is a good _encouragement_. But I wouldn't use it as a manual.
You aren't going to find anything better out there besides Perkins, VanMastricht, and Vinet. Most of the other works written on Homiletics all look to these 3.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

Above all else, one must be faithful to the text's original meaning. A text cannot mean what it never meant. Only once that has been determined and delineated, may we homiletically move towards contemporary application. BTW "application" doesn't necessarily denote "5 Steps to a Great Marriage" etc. If a person grows in anyway whatsoever, then application has occurred. Christlikeness is always the goal. Progressive Sanctification.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

Now, if by "method" you're signifying "presentation", then there are multiple presentation methods. I like to expound a book pericope by pericope (verse by verse can easily overlook context), then the next series I might do something topical for a few weeks-- like select parts of the Proverbs. I'd find it mind numbing to listen to a verse for verse analysis of Proverbs 1-31. Or I might do a series on the Decalog, as opposed to all of Exodus or Deut. Preaching through a book isn't necessarily "expository" if you stray from the original intent/meaning of the book under view, coupled with a precise grasp of how a pericope fits into the overall frame of a book, coupled with a precise grasp of how the book, and the author, fit into the chronology of God's progressive revelation in Holy Writ. Eg. you can't begin to understand Hebrews if you do not get Leviticus--it's impossible. Now, a novice might preach an orthodox topical message on "faith" using Hebrews 11, in part or in whole. But even if he goes _word for word _it's not genuine exposition if those meta-contextual elements are either overlooked, or unknown. Overlooking meta-contextualities is, in my view, homiletical misfeasance; one doesn't have to constantly point these out, but they must be made clear. If the meta-contextualities are unknown, then this is simply homiletical ignorance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

I know he gets slammed on PB, but I learned from Bryan Chapell when he was just hitting his stride--Covenant Seminary 96-00. Do I hear someone calling for an auto de fe? Subtle attempt at humor--which, btw, Bryan generally disdained in the pulpit; he's no Fred Craddock. Mr. Chapell gets a bad rap. Very cordial man. But he was utterly brutal in his analysis of everything a student said. Literally. Every assertion, every illustration, every application had to be proven--without ANY doubt--to have been directly derived from the text at hand; the main points had to have major markers from the text; the sub-points had to be directly derived from the previous main point, which forced you to *stay in the text*. He put us in a box, and when we strayed he slammed us. Hard. Always graciously though . Ask anyone who was there in that time period, and they'll agree. I think that was his greatest strength--get the original meaning of the text and stay there under every circumstance. If you did that then you were being faithful to the text which was always priority number 1--actually it was his only priority. He demanded, yes "demanded", that we prove that we'd been faithful to the original authorial intent of the text. If we strayed we didn't get grace--we got law! And that was reflected in your grade.

He acknowledged that as we grew through the years the "box" would widen and lengthen, but the wood of the box must remain the same. (That's my analogy--I do not recall him using that metaphor in this way). I've heard some, who never studied under him, rail that he's all about the "stories". He wasn't. He hated "stories" for any purpose beside expounding the text at hand. Good night, if you told a tale--even if it made a valid point--and you couldn't prove it pointed to your text, then you got the axe. He pointed out that many a Puritan used vivid metaphors in preaching, and he would classify these as "illustrations". But they would only be valid if they pointed to the original intent of the text, and the Puritans were known for sticking with the text. I preach nothing like Bryan, but I've never forgotten his emphasis on text, text, text, text!

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> I cannot find the reference at the moment, but I have in my notes a Puritan model of preaching that was both expositional and theological. I believe it followed the pattern of text, context, doctrine, application ... so that in each exposition the doctrinal points are intentionally lifted out of that day's passage, not taken for granted. And the application then winds up always as applied theology, rather than using the narrative solely as model for daily life. I want to say Packer wrote an article on it ... someone here may know what I'm thinking of.


Probably one of these contains the thought:
https://www.monergism.com/puritan-view-preaching-gospel
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-classical-analysis-of-puritan-preaching.php

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

Okay, one last post here. Funny story. During a lecture, in September '96, in Introductory Homiletics, Bryan insisted that you NEVER used a person in an illustration without their prior consent. I muttered under my breath, "What manner of idiot would do that?" Yes, you know where I'm headed. Jump to June '97, and I'm an intern. First sermon, first main point, first sub-point, first illustration and I use the youngest son of the RE in charge of my internship in a humorous way to make a homiletically valid, textually driven, theologically precise point. Everyone was laughing. The Session, the Diaconate, the Mom, the family. Everyone, that is, except the RE who gave me a look that could best be described as "icy". I kind of saw Bryan's apparition in the rear of the sanctuary, rather like Hamlet's daddy, shaking his head saying: "Kevin, what manner of idiot are you?" That RE and I are still great friends. I really should tell Bryan that story.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> If one wants to be "encouraged" to preach better, then Lloyd-Jones is a good _encouragement_. But I wouldn't use it as a manual.
> You aren't going to find anything better out there besides Perkins, VanMastricht, and Vinet. Most of the other works written on Homiletics all look to these 3.



Agreed. A great man used mightily by Our Lord. But, frankly, he did not expound the texts precisely in a consistent manner. Perkins is sublime. Dabney is awfully good, as well. But Perkins is the _fons et origo _of solidly Reformed preaching instruction.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

bookslover said:


> I actually think we need _less_ verse-by-verse exposition and _more_ theological preaching. I worry sometimes about how much basic theology any given congregation actually knows. There are some pretty ignorant Christians out there - even Reformed Christians - even though many have sat under verse-by-verse preaching for many years.
> 
> Spurgeon, of course, comes to mind. Taking a text instead of going through a book. You can get a lot of good theology from his sermons, plus you can find at least one sermon from almost every book of the Bible (and he's usually careful to give you the context of the verse he's taking before he launches out). How many guys who spend three years grinding through Galatians will be able to say that at the end of their ministries?
> 
> I once heard John MacArthur preach a theological sermon. Each point he made was bathed in Scripture, but the sermon was about a specific point of theology. I think we need more of that - a _lot_ more of that.



I'd second that. Good points.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 7, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Agreed. A great man used mightily by Our Lord. But, frankly, he did not expound the texts precisely in a consistent manner. Perkins is sublime. Dabney is awfully good, as well. But Perkins is the _fons et origo _of solidly Reformed preaching instruction.



Dabney is not good, he is astounding. His work on Sacred Rhetoric should be read by every preacher. Yet, what makes him good is that 1/3 of his book is Vinet quoted. <wink>

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Dabney is not good, he is astounding. His work on Sacred Rhetoric should be read by every preacher. Yet, what makes him good is that 1/3 of his book is Vinet quoted. <wink>


 We'd best be careful. Dabney is not a politically correct figure these days.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 7, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> We'd best be careful. Dabney is not a politically correct figure these days.



Right. Well, if one wants to be a politician, then dont read Dabney. But if one wants to be a good preacher, he's required.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 7, 2017)

Edwards said:


> Hi
> What is the best homiletic method in a nutshell?



Edwards,

Welcome to PB. Please update your signature per our requirements: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/ so that we may properly address you.


----------



## Held Fast (Sep 7, 2017)

I appreciate the concern for the theological development of the church, and have been known to take a break from exposition in between books perhaps, or even smack in the middle if it seems edifying, to preach out of a catechism, using the key verse as the primary text. I will also reference a catechism question in the doctrinal portion of the preaching when appropriate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Right. Well, if one wants to be a politician, then dont read Dabney. But if one wants to be a good preacher, he's required.


Indeed. I hope some "progressive" guys at least read him secretly-- in their studies with only the flashlight of their smartphone as light. LOL. The man was a giant of a theologian. He and Thornwell, and the Hodges, and Warfield et al would simply tower over anyone alive today at any General Assembly or Synod. He's met his Maker. The PC crowd should just leave him alone.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

Held Fast said:


> I appreciate the concern for the theological development of the church, and have been known to take a break from exposition in between books perhaps, or even smack in the middle if it seems edifying, to preach out of a catechism, using the key verse as the primary text. I will also reference a catechism question in the doctrinal portion of the preaching when appropriate.



I've been wanting to spend a few years preaching through the Larger Catechism, taking appropriate breaks with strict book and chapter preaching. The LC on the Law of God is unsurpassed; no other document even comes close.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Sep 7, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Dabney, Shedd, Perkins, T. David Gordon, Tim Keller (yes, his book on preaching is actually quite good), Hughes Oliphant Old's history of preaching, and Dennis Johnson.


T. David is a personal friend and colleague of mine up here in Ascension. The background of his book is somewhat amusing--but you'll not hear the details from me! His book on hymns, critiquing contemporary worship, is also quite excellent.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 7, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> If one wants to be "encouraged" to preach better, then Lloyd-Jones is a good _encouragement_. But I wouldn't use it as a manual.


Martyn Lloyd-Jones is rightly regarded as the "Prince of Preachers" alongside Spurgeon. One can learn from the greatest of preachers even when one may disagree on the odd point.

I think the new DVD series Lloyd-Jones "Logic on fire" captures this nicely. Lloyd-Jones legacy in preaching was twofold:
1. He had an amazing ability to logically analyse truth - one can hear him preach and say this logically flows
2. He showed - in the best Jonathan Edwards tradition - that when preaching is done in the power of the Holy Spirit, people are gripped by the message and lives are changed. Lloyd-Jones impact on the church and her preaching was immense.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 7, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I put Perkins ahead of Keller, Stephen. So I believe that keeps my Puritan bona fides intact.


Just making sure you "Perkens" up your love for Puritan preaching


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 7, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Martyn Lloyd-Jones is rightly regarded as the "Prince of Preachers" alongside Spurgeon. One can learn from the greatest of preachers even when one may disagree on the odd point.



This is a very good comparrison. MLJ and Spurgeon had more similarities than not. Both deserve the title Prince of Preachers.

I own everything MLJ ever wrote or preached and years ago studied it all. While at RTS in the early 90s, I listened to most of his sermons everyday during workstudy.

I inherited all of Spurgeon's sermons from my grandfather. MT and PSP and read volumes of Spurgeon.

I would classify neither as mainly expository, and say, having read so much of them, that they were both flowery in their preaching.

I think in their respective times, and in their respective places, they were used of God.

Neither were even remotely the calibur of a Jonathan Edwards, a King of Preachers, (in whose expository preaching style was used in the Great Awakening and revivals of religion). Neither are in that class, nor in a class of men like Perkins, Manton, Mead, Goodwin, Burroughs, etc. Though, oddly, both Spurgeon and MLJ read the puritans widely.

One wonders why Spurgeon and MLJ style of preaching didn't more resemble the ones they read in an expository manner.

(Keeping in mind 1 Cor. 3:21)
(And keep in mind we are talking about solid manuals for preaching.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 8, 2017)

Given the topic I did not want to sidetrack this, but I don't think some of the comments about Martyn Lloyd-Jones are accurate.


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I own everything MLJ ever wrote or preached and years ago studied it all. While at RTS in the early 90s, I listened to most of his sermons everyday during workstudy.


I have listened to MLJ sermons for over 20 years, read many of his sermon books. I have read Iain Murray's 2 vol biography many times (still one of my favourites) and listened to the DVD series MLJ "Logic on fire" many times. I have personally met a number of MLJ's close friends and heard his biographer Iain Murray preach in my city. I have also talked to many people from a number of countries who heard the Doctor preach.


C. Matthew McMahon said:


> I would classify neither as mainly expository, and say, having read so much of them, that they were both flowery in their preaching.


I think you might be confusing his written sermons with the actual preaching recordings. MLJ acknowledged that preaching does not easily translate to print. I find MLJ significantly more logical, more analytical than Spurgeon. The only flowery thing I notice about MLJ was his love of TULIP 

With MLJ's extended expositions of John, Romans, Ephesians, Acts, exegetical and logical precision, its clear MLJ was an expositary preacher. Iain Murray is very convincing on this in his biography, also his recent book "MLJ Messanger of grace"



C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Neither were even remotely the calibur of a Jonathan Edwards, a King of Preachers, (in whose expository preaching style was used in the Great Awakening and revivals of religion). Neither are in that class, nor in a class of men like Perkins, Manton, Mead, Goodwin, Burroughs, etc.


I remain unconvinced:
1. MLJ had a brilliant mind of the very best of men. He trained at the best medical school in London and could diagnose medical patients better than his tutor Sir Thomas Hoarder. Iain Murray said MLJ had a mind that could "drive multiple turbines". A close friend of mine is a medical researcher in a leading medical company. She told me that MLJ completed a medical degree *and* a PhD and did all this in the time it would take an ordinary doctor to do a medical degree. Further she said his research he did (in the 1920's) was so good it is still cited in medical literature today.
2. Many leading pastors today have paid tribute to MLJ extraordinary spiritual gifts. Sproal said he is a Titan (= a giant) of the christian ministry. MacArthur said he will go in history as one of the greatest preachers of all time. Many similar comments at https://www.mljtrust.org/endorsements/
3. MLJ could hold an audience "spellbound" and totally gripped by the message to the extent they forgot time and their surroundings and were gripped, blessed, and humbled by the message. They thought they were in heaven! I have personally talked to people who were impacted by MLJ's preaching in this way. A man who preaches like this is a 'manual for preaching'. I am not convinced that Edwards, great man as he was, did preach like that (and I LOVE Edwards sermons).
4. Carricks book "The preaching of Jonathan Edwards" argues that Edwards was not the model pastor in terms of pastoral care. He was aloof, a gifted academic. I think this was part of the reason why he was tragically removed from his pulpit. MLJ was exceptionally gifted at pastoral care. He was the model pastor here. His biography (chapter on pastoral counselling) is excellent here. His medical knowledge, spiritual wisdom, theological knowledge, and giftedness with people all explain his ability to pastorally counsel people and earn their trust too.
5. MLJ was also a model pastor in how he taught and counselled other pastors both in the Westminster Fellowship and in private help he gave to pastors. Hywell Jones in his chapter in the book "MLJ Chosen by God" argues that MLJ well taught pastors in all key areas of pastoral work. He said it was better than seminary training!

However your final point is true re 1 Cor 3:21. Calvin is not Whitefield. Bavinck is not Perkins etc etc. All men of God have gifts. I regard MLJ as the greatest of 'overall' pastors but yet acknowledge he did not write a 'Reformed Dogmatics' like Bavinck or Vos.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Sep 8, 2017)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Agreed. A great man used mightily by Our Lord. But, frankly, he did not expound the texts precisely in a consistent manner. Perkins is sublime. Dabney is awfully good, as well. But Perkins is the _fons et origo _of solidly Reformed preaching instruction.



D. A. Carson, in his _New Testament Commentary Survey_, says that Lloyd-Jones can be profitable to learn from, but only if you read very quickly (Lloyd-Jones could be quite verbose). Carson did add, however, that Lloyd-Jones often gives material that would be hard to find anywhere else.

John MacArthur once said that, as the years pass, he uses fewer and fewer illustrations in his sermons and, when he does use them, they tend to come from Scripture, not from "outside."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edwards (Sep 8, 2017)

Grateful thanks for the helpful insight regarding preaching!! Very helpful and all the comments help me clarify where to go to for resources. With much appreciation to all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Edwards (Sep 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Edwards,
> 
> Welcome to PB. Please update your signature per our requirements: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/ so that we may properly address you.



I tried to but it's not allowing me to re enter my info as it says it already exists. What steps should I follow to update my info. Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 8, 2017)

Edwards said:


> I tried to but it's not allowing me to re enter my info as it says it already exists. What steps should I follow to update my info. Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone *using Tapatalk*


First, you probably should not try this using Tapatalk.

Go here on your PC/laptop:
https://www.puritanboard.com/account/signature

Make the necessary changes per the requirements:
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/


----------



## Edwards (Sep 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> First, you probably should not try this using Tapatalk.
> 
> Go here on your PC/laptop:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/account/signature
> ...



Ok thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

