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



## Bookmeister (May 13, 2009)

I would like a feel for where people stand on PB about this. I am fairly new and interested.

1. Yes, it's the only way to preach.
2. Yes, it has it's place.
3. No, it ignores application.
4. No
5. What's Redemptive-Historical preaching?


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

I voted that it has its place. Everything does. Redemptive history is a beautiful thing. It's God's story and our history.


----------



## Theognome (May 13, 2009)

I think it, like more Theonomic preaching, is good in moderation. I don't feel it is healthy to adhere to any single theological construct, for there are good and edifying principles found in many.

Theognome


----------



## Matthias (May 13, 2009)

Not familiar with this... can someone elaborate please?

Thanks


----------



## KMK (May 13, 2009)

How does RH ignore application? I primarily preach RH and am very heavy on application.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 13, 2009)

I chose option #1, but considered #2. The Gospel is the core of Christian belief - thus I believe the RH model, in some form, is the only way to preach because it never looks past the work Christ has accomplished on the cross.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

I guess the reason I chose 2 is because I'm one of these people who believes the whole Bible is the gospel - God telling us over and over again, _Look to Me and live_.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 13, 2009)

I voted, Yes it has it`s place


----------



## Jon Peters (May 13, 2009)

Matthias said:


> Not familiar with this... can someone elaborate please?
> 
> Thanks



Redemptive Historical preaching does a couple of things. First, it seeks to place the text that is being taught in the context of the history of redemption. Thus, you'll find the language somewhat different, lots of eschatological this and that. The sermons can also sweep quite broadly. I had the feeling sometimes that it was too ambitious and lost the congregation. 

Second, it is Christ centered. The whole of Scripture is about the work of Christ so every passage will be brought to bear on what it means in Christ.

Third, it will apply the text only when the text applies. So if one is preaching through Ephesians, if you're not at a particular point where Paul is making practical application, then the pastor will not either. However, it's not that you won't be directed to live a godly life. You will constantly hear of your status in Christ, and that is the reason given for why you should then live a godly life. They tend to avoid a lot of practical application because it can be moralistic.

I am open to correction on any of what I've said. My comments are born out of a couple of years under a prominent RH preacher (though that was 8 years ago).

I do think there are more moderate version of RH preaching. Some things I mentioned are common to many Reformed preachers. My experience with the more radical RH preachers is that you'll find a noticeable difference in style and language. I think it is a difficult style to pull off without sounding like you're lecturing. Vos' sermons are a perfect illustration. Some are wonderful; others are bone dry.


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 13, 2009)

In that case, my vote is with "Yes, it has it's place", but not with it being exclusive.


----------



## Rogerant (May 13, 2009)

I say, a double "YES" Historical Redemptive with "Christo-Centric" focus! Of course you can tell my my personal profile that I am somewhat bent in that direction by the picture of A.W. Pink on my page! 

PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.

Christo-Centric interpretation looks for all the types in the O.T. that prefigure Christ and His work. Re: Moses, Joseph, David etc.

Historical Grammatical interpretation does not allow us to interpret the types in the O.T. unless they are interpreted by the N.T. authors. You must interpret everything in it's historical and cultural context.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 13, 2009)

Rogerant said:


> I say, a double "YES" Historical Redemptive with "Christo-Centric" focus! Of course you can tell my my personal profile that I am somewhat bent in that direction by the picture of A.W. Pink on my page!
> 
> PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.
> 
> ...



I always thought GH and RH were the same thing.  So, are you saying that RH is broader than GH in its interpretation, taking more liberties with OT texts than GH? 

I learn something new every day here. What a load of fun!


----------



## ww (May 13, 2009)

RH preaching feeds me week after week and includes plenty of application.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 13, 2009)

Here is an essay written by John Frame on the subject which I think is very helpful:
Ethics, Preaching and Biblical Theology

And here is a book I would recommend for those who wish to study the Hermeneutics behind it:
Amazon.com: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation: Graeme Goldsworthy: Books


----------



## Jesus is my friend (May 13, 2009)

whitway said:


> RH preaching feeds me week after week and includes plenty of application.


----------



## ww (May 13, 2009)

Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics

Here are some helpful links with applicable resources as well.


----------



## Bookmeister (May 13, 2009)

Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.


----------



## Rogerant (May 13, 2009)

Chippy said:


> Here is an essay written by John Frame on the subject which I think is very helpful:
> Ethics, Preaching and Biblical Theology
> 
> And here is a book I would recommend for those who wish to study the Hermeneutics behind it:
> Amazon.com: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation: Graeme Goldsworthy: Books


Yes that is an excellent book on the subject. There are these as well:

Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale

Him we Proclaim, Preaching Christ from all of Scriptures by Dennis e. Johnson

According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy

Preaching Christ in all of Scripture by Edmund P. Clowney

And anything written by A.W. Pink!


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 13, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.



So you have a problem with expository preaching?


----------



## Bookmeister (May 14, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.
> ...



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


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 14, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Bookmeister said:
> ...



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


----------



## Brian Withnell (May 14, 2009)

RH and HG do not conflict, and both are to be used simultaneously. <evil grin>

The meaning in context of history is the only way to understand what God communicated, but it is also true that all of scripture speaks to the gospel of Christ. There is no either/or in this case, it is a both/and.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 14, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> > Bookmeister said:
> ...



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


----------



## OPC'n (May 14, 2009)

Yes, it has its place.


----------



## JWJ (May 14, 2009)

I too had trouble picking answer 1 or 2. In short, the fact that all the recorded sermons of the apostles including the book of Hebrews (which is a sermon) is strong testimony to how we should be preaching. Surely one can and should mix different “styles” and “approaches” but the goal and overall approach should be Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic in nature. 

In short, no matter what verse, topic, or theme one is expounding the question: “What does this say about Christ?” must be front and center for both the preacher and the mature listeners. In other words, before one can truly and effectively apply the message in their life to the glory of Christ, they must first understand how it all connects and testifies to Christ. 

In addition, not only should the preaching be Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic but so should every Christian’s hermeneutic. If every Christian would truly strive towards an Apostolic, Christocentric, Christotelic hermeneutic then I believe many issues of doctrine would cease. In particular, this includes the differences in theological systems (i.e., Dispensationalism, Progressive Disp., Promise Theology, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology) and especially the perennial debate of baptism (credo versus paedo). 

As a minister of the gospel and teacher of many young “Timothy’s”, I make Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic hermeneutics front and center in equipping all the saints. Without this I would fail in my goal to present all mature in Christ (Col. 1:28). 

Jim


----------



## Bookmeister (May 14, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> > LadyFlynt said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Knoxienne (May 14, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > Bookmeister said:
> ...



Oh, okay. "Slaying the Giants in Your Life" with the David and Goliath account rings a bell. I remember the pastor (very RH!) in the first reformed church I went to warning us about that.

That's the type of preaching heard a lot on Christian radio - which I haven't listened to in years! Very shallow.  It's also heard in a lot of Junk Store self-help books and in many of those mega churches. 

Thanks for the clarification. Your last sentence which I bolded was especially helpful.


----------



## TimV (May 14, 2009)

> PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.



From where I sit Historical Redemptive is a phrase like Post Modern, or Regulative Principle in Worship. That is to say that the phrase is really so broad that it verges on not having a specific meaning.

So, take 



> Lev 25:13 "In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property.
> Lev 25:14 And if you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.
> Lev 25:15 You shall pay your neighbor according to the number of years after the jubilee, and he shall sell to you according to the number of years for crops


. 

Now which interpretation is HR?

a) This is a type of the eternal inheritance that we believers have in Christ, and has nothing to do with economics

b) This is a really basic, common sense way of insuring the maximum percentage of self supporting land owners in a population, and goes a long way to prevent large numbers of poor, crime ridden urban populations that we see so commonly in third world countries.

c) This is mainly type of the eternal inheritance that we have in Christ, and it is illustrated by the common sense economic principle that the maximum number of self sufficient land owners provides the best social make up. Just like not muzzling an ox while it is treading out the grain, the primary reason for the law is to point to spiritual truths, but that doesn't mean muzzling an ox suddenly becomes a good thing.


----------



## nicnap (May 14, 2009)

Joshua said:


> I don't believe in it. It doesn't exist. I've never seen it! It's not there!


----------



## KMK (May 14, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > Bookmeister said:
> ...





> Heb 12:1,2 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.



I think preaching "Dare To Be Daniel" is edifying if it is followed by, "Look Unto Jesus The Author And Finisher Of Our Faith." Is that what you are saying?

In his book, "Christ Centered Preaching", Bryan Chapell talks about the FCF (Fallen Condition Focus) and how it is essential to every sermon. The FCF drives people to Christ. So you preach "Dare To Be Daniel" then preach "You Can't" then preach "Look Unto Jesus".


----------



## CharlieJ (May 14, 2009)

LadyFlynt said:


> 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 (May 14, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> 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 (May 14, 2009)

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 (May 14, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> > Bookmeister said:
> ...



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 (May 14, 2009)

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


----------



## Bookmeister (May 15, 2009)

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

What exactly is wrong with this?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (May 15, 2009)

puritanpilgrim said:


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



SBC


----------



## LadyFlynt (May 15, 2009)

So...

Preaching the Gospel vs a Pep Talk


----------



## Michael Butterfield (May 15, 2009)

Bookmeister said:


> 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


----------

