# Application



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 27, 2010)

Should a pastor have an application in his sermon? If so, what does it look like?


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 27, 2010)

The Puritans were experts at it. It is explaining to the congregation what comforts, convictions, and commandments the hearer should draw from the text.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Should a pastor have an application in his sermon? If so, what does it look like?


 Absolutely.

You can listen to any of my sermons to hear how I attempt to make application: Christ Church PCA


----------



## Andres (Dec 27, 2010)

I will give my thoughts since I sort of brought this up in the other thread...First, I am not a preacher so I am happy to be corrected by those more experienced and learned than myself. It is my understanding that the preaching of the Word is supposed to be the minister expounding on the Word of God. He is the mouthpiece of God proclaiming the Word and as such he should not add anything to the Word, such as his own thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. This would include application. He should explain the texts of scripture to the congregation using good exegesis.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> I will give my thoughts since I sort of brought this up in the other thread...First, I am not a preacher so I am happy to be corrected by those more experienced and learned than myself. It is my understanding that the preaching of the Word is supposed to be the minister expounding on the Word of God. He is the mouthpiece of God proclaiming the Word and as such he should not add anything to the Word, such as his own thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. This would include application. He should explain the texts of scripture to the congregation using good exegesis.


 In my opinion you would be gravely incorrect.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 27, 2010)

Careful application should be a mandatory part of every sermon.
Without application, you are doing little more than reading the Word.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 27, 2010)

1 Tim. 4:13 "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to *exhortation*, to doctrine."

When I read "exhortation," I understand Paul to mean exhorting the hearers to put into practice what is taught in the text. This is application to the hearers, is it not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> I will give my thoughts since I sort of brought this up in the other thread...First, I am not a preacher so I am happy to be corrected by those more experienced and learned than myself. It is my understanding that the preaching of the Word is supposed to be the minister expounding on the Word of God. He is the mouthpiece of God proclaiming the Word and as such he should not add anything to the Word, such as his own thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. This would include application. He should explain the texts of scripture to the congregation using good exegesis.


 
With Fred, I agree - this is, I think, quite seriously incorrect. You seem to be arguing that a pastor should expound the text, while saying he ought not to be doing so using any ideas or opinions of his own. Apart from what I believe is a grave error (i.e. application should not be made) I honestly cannot see how a pastor can expound the Word of God without venturing into the territory you argue he shouldn't. How can he explain the text without doing so as a fallible man offering his "best read" according to his education, and the blessing of God's Spirit upon his study? His own ideas and best understanding is going to be offered, and ought to be offered, with God's help. That is all he can do (and what he must do, including bringing the text in a particular way - i.e. _discuss application_ - to His flock according to their station and needs).


----------



## JML (Dec 27, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Should a pastor have an application in his sermon? If so, what does it look like?


 
There are several different methods on this. My pastor usually will expound the passage and then add applications at the end of his sermon. I think this is more of what the Puritans did. I could be wrong on that though. When I preach, I include applications all throughout my exposition instead of at the end. On each section I will say what the passage means and then how it applies to us. For me, it makes sense to do it that way because we have such short attention spans. If I don't apply it when I am on that particular point some people have already forgotten some of what I talked about when I come to the end. Just my thoughts. Definitely not a rule.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 27, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Careful application should be a mandatory part of every sermon.
> Without application, you are doing little more than reading the Word.


 
A great way of putting it. I think that when some read "application" they assume that means an imperative "do this". It may even be an indicative passage ("you are this in Christ").

As an example, if one were to look at the Book of Romans, you can see Paul taking little breaks along the way to have the reader pause to consider the implications of things. We are often told to stop and "consider" certain things and it is the job of preaching to cause the congregation to consider the implications of the text.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 27, 2010)

The Westminster Directory for Public Worship (1645) on Preaching says the following about application:
He is not to rest in general doctrine, although never so much cleared and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by application to his hearers: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet he is to endeavour to perform it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to God.​This has always been a highly regard exposition of Puritan preaching, though Old for some reason thinks it weakened the Reformer's practice for going through books.


----------



## Curt (Dec 27, 2010)

Bob Palmer, one of my homiletics profs at Covenant Seminary (several generations ago), taught that we need to tell the people what they need to do. They cannot respond properly to God's Word, unless they have it shown them in terms of how it works in their own lives.


----------



## Andres (Dec 27, 2010)

okay, I see that many disagree with me and I fully expected that to be the case. Again, I have had no formal homiletics courses or any formal training in preaching so obviously you men who do have this learning and experience have vast knowledge over myself and I sincerely appreciate your contributions to this thread. You have given me much to think about and study. I would however like to express some of where I was coming from with my view. Again, I know that not everyone agrees with it, but I think it only fair to the man who taught it to me to properly present his side. He is a respected minister in the OPC, so if you do not agree with him that is fine, but I am sure everyone here has courtesy to disagree respectfully. So here is what he emailed me because I asked him to help me explain this more clearly: 



> What I was taught in Seminary is that a sermon consists of:
> 
> Attention Grabber
> Develop the Felt-Need of the Audience
> ...



I also have some articles here that explain this view.
Redemptive-Historical Preaching
Some Thoughts on Preaching
Bridges or Ladders?
Preaching and Application: A Review
Book Review of Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 27, 2010)

Andres, 

I think you should read _The Imperative of Preaching_ by John Carrick. Also,_ Evangelical Eloquence_ by Dabney. Thirdly, _The Preaching of Jonathan Edwards_, by Carrick. Each show how/ why application is necessary; without it, you do not have a sermon. I know this is brief and not an answer to any particular post, but I think these would help your understanding.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 27, 2010)

Andres said:


> Just read a few of Spurgeon's sermons and you will get some excellent examples of true Christ-centered preaching without the need to fill up the sermon with the pastor's anecdotes.



Andrew, I think most of us agree with this pastor's feelings about what is common in modern preaching. However, this quote shows that this minister is not addressing the same thing we are addressing here. Spurgeon was not an expository preacher -- He would start with a single verse and preach topically on the topic mentioned in the verse. He had enough knowledge of the Scriptures as a whole that he could do this fairly well, but he did not simply exegete a text. The kind of application we are discussing is telling the hearers what their response to the text should be -- Should they draw comfort from it? Repent in response to it? etc. It can be done after or while expositing a passage, which is a step closer to what you are calling for than what Spurgeon did.

In other words, I think you are confusing application with sermon illustrations and cute stories. They are not the same.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 27, 2010)

Andrew, if you equate "application" with "anecdote," I might agree with you. But, Spurgeon himself was a master of application.

Here are excerpts of one of his sermons I picked at random:



> III. Let us speak awhile upon THE ENCOURAGEMENT which our text and the context yields to us; for it seems to me to abound.
> I want you, brethren, to exercise faith in the promise and be comforted. . . .
> 
> Make a point, whenever you receive a promise from God, to get all you can out of it if you carry out that rule, it is wonderful what comfort you will gain. Some go on the principle of getting as little as possible out of God's word. I believe that such a plan is the proper way with a man's word; always understand it at the minimum, because that is what he means; but God's word is to be understood at the maximum, for he will do exceeding abundantly above what you ask or even think. . . .
> ...



The link to the full sermon is here: Christ the Conqueror of Satan

Of course one must be careful in the application, but bringing God's Word to his people demands that it become real in their lives, which I think is what your pastor friend seeks to do as well. Commonly, and historically, that is called "application" as far as I understand.


----------



## Don Kistler (Dec 27, 2010)

William Perkins' book on preaching shows that there are normally 7 groups of people that need to be addressed in each sermon. We obviously can't do individual application, but we can address groups. An example would be, "To those of you who are convinced that Christ could not forgive a sin such as you have committed, the doctrine preached today would apply to you in this way...."

"To those who are under conviction of sin today, let the doctrine encourage you to..."

The typical Puritan sermon consisted of 3 things: The text explained, the doctrine stated, and the doctrine applied. So the hearer would know what he had to do with what he heard.


----------



## KMK (Dec 27, 2010)

Perhaps the confusion is in the meaning of the word 'application'. Here is Perkins on the word 'application'.

William Perkins:



> Application is the skill by which the doctrine which has been properly drawn from Scripture is handled in ways which are appropriate to the circumstances of the place and time and to the people in the congregation. *This is the biblical approach to exposition*: "'I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down," says the Lord God. "I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick"' (Ezek. 34:15, 16). 'And on some have compassion, making a distinction, but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire' (Jude 22, 23). The Art of Prophesying; chapter VII



Application of doctrine is the means by which a shepherd fulfills his mandate of teaching, reproving, exhorting, admonishing and consoling. Application is the means by which the hearer takes ownership of the doctrine. "The Lord is my shepherd" is not comforting until the 'my' is you.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 27, 2010)

KMK said:


> Perhaps the confusion is in the meaning of the word 'application'. Here is Perkins on the word 'application'.
> 
> William Perkins:
> 
> ...


 
This quote from Perkins is excellent - and explains exactly why I think that listening to a sermon audio sermon isn't the same as listening to the pastor of your flock preaching... I love what I'm able to listen to online, but we always have to remember that those sermons that we hear online do NOT carry the same blessings to us as do sermons from the undershepherd tasked with caring for the flock that includes us, assuming he is doing his work from the perspective of a shepherd of the sheep (which admittedly not all do). The pastor we have over us is our God-ordained shepherd, and when preaching should be gearing his message to his own flock. Thus not only for reasons of style, but also for reasons of perspective, depth and application, will a dozen sermons on John 6:44 look different. When I'm listening to a pastor online, I'm listening to a shepherd preaching to HIS congregation... it's not quite the same thing, as instructive, edifying and encouraging as it might be. Our pastors ought to take care to deliver the message to the sheep they've been given care of - and not aim in the first place for some objective standard of beauty and eloquence (or even some objective of theological correctness and confessional integrity, though those are absolutely important). Rather, they are feeding THEIR flock - and this MUST flavor what they say and how they say it.


----------



## Don Kistler (Dec 27, 2010)

In Jeremiah, when God promised that He would give the people shepherds after His own heart, He said that they would feed the people with knowledge and understanding. In the Puritan understanding, this was teaching and application,
what to know, and what to do with what you know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 28, 2010)

Andres said:


> I also have some articles here that explain this view.
> Redemptive-Historical Preaching
> Some Thoughts on Preaching
> Bridges or Ladders?
> ...


 
Andrew,

I don't want to pile on here but just want to point out that you're not going out of your mind if you have seen some suspicion of the appropriateness of application from some corners.

Now, first of all, I'm a proponent of sound Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical preaching. That said, there are some in our circles who might be referred to as "hyper-BT" who have taken certain ideas to an extreme.

When I was a member of the OPC in SoCal in the early 2000's, there was a minister was trying to push for the Redemptive Historical approach to be the only appropriate approach to the Scriptures within the SoCal Presbytery. He not only wanted RH-preaching to be the only appropriate preaching but his version of RH preaching that completely excluded application or imperative. I remember speaking to one of the ministers who noted that this minister did not believe that a Pastor should give any application whatsoever but that the Holy Spirit ought to provide the application. Furthermore, the only appropriate kind of preaching was the indicative - in other words, only preach what Christ has accomplished for the believer and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

It took me a while to decipher some of the complaints I was hearing from some of my fellow Church members at the time about our own Pastor. They would complain that he preached the law too much. The reason is that they were infected by this view that any application or any injunction is somehow "law" and not Gospel.

I guess it all depends on where you fall down on this issue. It's clear, from the Confessional standpoint, that there is not the clean wedge between application/injunction/exhortation and the simple announcement of Christ's finished work that some claim. The more thoughtful proponents of the newer view have at least listed their exception to practically the whole of WCF 19. In fact, I would prefer that those that seek to get rid of all application would be more systematic and draw these cleaner lines so we could be clearer about where we are today in some camps as many are straddling between two views without even realizing it.

I remember as I was sort of cutting my teeth on this issue back in the early 2000's I wasn't so much involved in the debate as much as I witnessed an obvious irrationality in the patterns of the lives of parents who, on the one hand, wanted no imperatives but, on the other hand, couldn't live their lives like that with their own children. Though we all believed our children were disciples, they did not simply give indicatives to their small children, reminding them that Christ had been a perfect Child for each of them, and then allowed the Holy Spirit to make the application in each of their tiny lives. God forbid. They told them when to go to bed. They told them not to put their fingers in light sockets. They provided all manner of loving instruction. Why? Because law in the context of a father-son relationship is of a significantly different character than law in the context of a judge-convict relationship. Every parent understands that according to the light of nature. The problem is that we get this crazy idea in our heads that we are not "children" any more just because we can wipe our own behinds and cross the street without somebody holding our hands. Elders are not called elders for no reason.

As I said before, this is not a recipe to turn every passage into some sort of "action plan". If I'm exhorting on Christ as the just and the justifier of sinners in Romans 3, I'm not going to turn it around as to what we are supposed to _do_ to make true something that we already _are_. Application is often making something that is far away very close to the hearer. We have cultural, time, and language "distances" from the writers of the Scriptures and the task of the preacher is often to bring these truths "close" so the hearer does not think of them as timeless truths but as living and active and vibrant Words that change and/or convict. Consequently, when the Word announces that we _are_ something then we underline it to the hearer and when the Word reproves, exhorts, or instructs we bring to bear what the Word says to this particular outpost of the Kingdom of God that His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 28, 2010)

We were taught at RPTS to preach using a "three-fold" method. Exposit the text , illustrate the text , apply the text always using an introduction, a homiletical point (stated in the sermon) and a conclusion. It depends on the Scripture (narrative, etc...) how this works with a given text. Sometimes it is "read v. 1-2" follow three-fold method...."read v. 3" follow three-fold method, etc. Other times it is "read the whole text" then follow three-fold method. Like I said depends on the text.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 28, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I don't want to pile on here but just want to point out that you're not going out of your mind if you have seen some suspicion of the appropriateness of application from some corners.
> 
> ...


 
Rich - exactly!! We don't want cute stories or anecdotes, or stories that are made to fit into a sermon without any real connection except that it is a "good story." But we don't want a dearth of imperative in preaching either. Just look at some of the sermons reporting in Scripture and you will see that application is essential (here calls to repent):

[BIBLE]Acts 3:17-21[/BIBLE]
and 
[BIBLE]Acts 51:53[/BIBLE]

Andres, I would also be very wary of using Lee Irons as a model for preaching. You would also benefit from a wider perspective than Kerux.


----------



## TomVols (Jan 2, 2011)

Andres, I too do not want to pile on because I hear where you are coming from and you are not alone. John MacArthur has been an outspoken critic of application in the sermon so the anti-aplication movement is not tied to RH. I would encourage you to read Chapell's book on preach as well as John Broadus's book "On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons" (just make sure it's either his first edition or the second revision. The third and 4th are too far gone from Broadus's own thoughts.) You have a desire to uphold the preaching event, and this is more than commendable. However, we need not bow to the fancies of the felt-needs crowd in order to be faithful to the Word. We can be applicatory and exegetical. I've never gotten a good answer from the anti-application folks on this: if we aren't to apply the sermon because that might usurp the work of the Spirit, why explain the sermon? Wouldn't we mess that up, too? Why not just read the text and go home? Even Jesus, in my estimation, used application. 

At any rate, I don't want to be uncharitable because I know you come from a perspective (I trust) of upholding the preaching event. I don't believe application kills the whole edifice, however, and I think once you read the great divines on homiletics, you'll find you feel the same way. Just my humble opinion, my friend and brother.


----------



## Poimen (Jan 2, 2011)

2 Timothy 3:16-17 _"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, *for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness*, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."_

If every Christian is to receive scripture in this manner, how can we not expect our pastors to preach it in this manner? As Paul elsewhere told Timothy the pastor: _

"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. *Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching."*_

And Titus:
_
"For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, *teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age,* looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people,* zealous for good works. Speak these things, *exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you._"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andres (Jan 3, 2011)

TomVols said:


> Andres, I too do not want to pile on because I hear where you are coming from and you are not alone. John MacArthur has been an outspoken critic of application in the sermon so the anti-aplication movement is not tied to RH. I would encourage you to read Chapell's book on preach as well as John Broadus's book "On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons" (just make sure it's either his first edition or the second revision. The third and 4th are too far gone from Broadus's own thoughts.) You have a desire to uphold the preaching event, and this is more than commendable. However, we need not bow to the fancies of the felt-needs crowd in order to be faithful to the Word. We can be applicatory and exegetical. I've never gotten a good answer from the anti-application folks on this: if we aren't to apply the sermon because that might usurp the work of the Spirit, why explain the sermon? Wouldn't we mess that up, too? Why not just read the text and go home? Even Jesus, in my estimation, used application.
> 
> At any rate, I don't want to be uncharitable because I know you come from a perspective (I trust) of upholding the preaching event. I don't believe application kills the whole edifice, however, and I think once you read the great divines on homiletics, you'll find you feel the same way. Just my humble opinion, my friend and brother.


 
thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. I do have Chappell's book and I do plan on reading it. Would you agree to read something of my suggestion? It's this critique of Chappell's book - Book Review of Bryan Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon.

My issue is not neccessarily with application itself, but rather how this application often plays out. When the majority of preachers speak of application (not putting words in anyone here's mouth) they are refereing to how the application is extracted from the text. Here is an excerpt from that article: 



> Chapell believes there are two worlds (ancient and contemporary) between which a cultural gap exists. He insists that in order to preach Christ, one must extract the redemptive truths from past Biblical history and contextualize them for today's modern listener. Moreover, he insists that the foolproof method for properly extracting relevant redemptive truths is by focusing each sermon on some portion of man's fallenness. Chapel states that Fallen Condition Focus "is the mutual human condition that contemporary believers share with those to or for whom the text was written that requires the grace of the passage" (p. 42). Chapell continues: "Our hope resides in the assurance that all Scripture has a Fallen Condition Focus" (p.41). Chapell further believes that the discovery of a passage's Fallen Condition Focus is what naturally leads to (even drives home) the sermon's application: "Facing the fact that every passage was written to address a fallen condition in its original context and in our present situation" (p. 265).
> 
> Application is the subject that he immediately addresses following his description of Fallen Condition Focus. "Clear articulation of a [Fallen Condition Focus] drives a message's application and insures the Christ-centeredness of the sermon" (p. 45). Furthermore, "the preacher who identifies a passage's [Fallen Condition Focus] for his congregation automatically gears the listener to consider the Bible's solutions and instructions for contemporary life" (p. 44).
> 
> Chapell tells us that the application of the sermon is not merely an appendage to the discussion or a subordinate part of it but is the main thing to be done in preaching. Thus it would appear that Chapell's goal is for the preacher to drive redemptive truths out the door of the ancient text across the Fallen Condition Focus bridge and to place them in the homes of, and to match them with the decor of, the contemporary audience. Fitting these redemptive truths (as if they were furniture) into the homes of the contemporary audience is evidently what Chapell has in mind when he speaks of application. These applications, extracted from the ancient text and driven across the Fallen Condition Focus bridge are apparently our only relevant way to connect with our post-enlightenment listeners.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jan 3, 2011)

Andres said:


> I will give my thoughts since I sort of brought this up in the other thread...First, I am not a preacher so I am happy to be corrected by those more experienced and learned than myself. It is my understanding that the preaching of the Word is supposed to be the minister expounding on the Word of God. He is the mouthpiece of God proclaiming the Word and as such he should not add anything to the Word, such as his own thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. This would include application. He should explain the texts of scripture to the congregation using good exegesis.


 

I think you would be very wrong. This seems like more of a lecture than a sermon. A sermon is supposed to bring the Word to the people and teach them how to change so application is mandatory. All Scripture is God breathed and profitable... It is a ministers job to show how so.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2011)

Andrew,

I read the review. I'll be short and to the point, since this is my day off, and leave it to others to flesh out my thoughts (Bruce?!). I think that Chapell's method has weaknesses as well. I do not think that the Procrustean bed of the "Fallen Condition Focus" is the-end-all-be-all. But the reviewer here falls into the same mistake. His Procrustean bed is the Redemptive Historical Theological model of Vos. Every sermon must somehow fit into the "already-not yet" mantra. In one little statement:



> Thus legitimate application of the Scripture causes us to feel the guilt that Adam felt, to see ourselves as Adam saw himself standing outside of Christ. It also causes us to see ourselves in Christ, as Christ saw himself—a Son bent on pleasing his heavenly Father.



the reviewer completely throws out the second and third uses of the Law. There are very legitimate applications of Scripture that are not first use of the Law related. Not everything is "I am a sinner, Christ is my Savior, FULL STOP." This is the problem with the unbalanced Redemptive-Historical approach (which is part and parcel of kerux, Lee Irons and the like). What place does_ "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 
(Ephesians 4:28)"_ have in the Kerux rubric? What place does a passage like this have: _ "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth" _(Col. 3:8)? I will tell you from experience - none to very little.

This view of "application" results in a severely truncated Bible, and a lackadaisical congregation.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 3, 2011)

A sermon should always call people to make a decision. Are they going to obey God or not? The preacher strives to expose their hearts to God's in such a way that they either have to rebel against him or their hearts conform more to His. This is application. First, text is exposited (exposed) and then it is exhorted (applied). Much of the work of applications attempts to help people to see themselves more clearly in contrast to God's holiness. Who is guiltless? None of us are. So application strives to show each person that they are guilty so that they can become more like Christ. It strives to eradicate people's comfort in sin. Sure, simply teaching what God's Word says and means in its historical context *can *do that. But people are very good and fooling themselves. And anyone who fools themselves is a fool on two counts. We need to help them/us to see through that. This too is application.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 3, 2011)

> Who is guiltless? None of us are. So application strives to show each person that they are guilty so that they can become more like Christ. It strives to eradicate people's comfort in sin



Is this not the job of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8)?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 3, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> > Who is guiltless? None of us are. So application strives to show each person that they are guilty so that they can become more like Christ. It strives to eradicate people's comfort in sin
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not the job of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8)?


 Yes, and the Scripture tells us that the work of the Spirit is found in the foolishness of preaching.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 3, 2011)

Then are we saying that if the application part of a sermon is the means by which the Spirit convicts our sin, then would a sermon without an application not be preaching?


----------



## jayce475 (Jan 3, 2011)

What does a sermon with absolutely no application look/sound like? Even if it is a strongly HR sermon, would there not be exhortations on the consecration of oneself?


----------



## TomVols (Jan 3, 2011)

> Chapell tells us that the application of the sermon is not merely an appendage to the discussion or a subordinate part of it but is the main thing to be done in preaching. Thus it would appear that Chapell's goal is for the preacher to drive redemptive truths out the door of the ancient text across the Fallen Condition Focus bridge and to place them in the homes of, and to match them with the decor of, the contemporary audience. Fitting these redemptive truths (as if they were furniture) into the homes of the contemporary audience is evidently what Chapell has in mind when he speaks of application. These applications, extracted from the ancient text and driven across the Fallen Condition Focus bridge are apparently our only relevant way to connect with our post-enlightenment listeners.


Andres, I'd agree with Fred a bit (though he may be a bit more anti-Chapell than I am...hard to tell from just one quote). We should be careful of the school that says that we should avoid application at all costs because it has been misused. So has explication, something almost no one says we should jettison. And this camp doesn't really believe in NO application - just an application that's well...not really applicable apart from an RH context that is strictly tied to an eschatalogical motif in the RH framework. 

I've read this review before, and it begs the question on several points. I'm all for the hermeneutic equaling the homiletic. I'm just not for the idea that the only way to do this is the way Vos would do it. I have much to pick apart in this review, but it's awfully late. Maybe another time if you'd care to hear my thoughts.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jan 4, 2011)

I agree with all that has been said above regarding application, i.e that it is an essential part of preaching. I would only add that Jesus was a applicatory preacher.

He did not just expound the OT and show that he was The Messiah and that the Kingdom had come but always applied - 

Matthew 4:17 “17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.””

When he was teaching his disciples he did not just teach truth and leave it hanging, he applied it - 

John 13:14-17 “14 “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 “For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. 16 “Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 “If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

I'd add the last verse as my application to this subject....If [we] know these things, blessed are [we] if [we] do them!


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2011)

It is good for a preacher to show how the passage applies to the Christian life. So I'm pro-application.

But... application can be subtle, and this is sometimes wise. The believer's motivition does not come from being hounded by a preacher to do this or that, but rather from the conviction and joy brought by the good news of Jesus. So the preacher must show off Christ to his listeners. He must preach the gospel. If he does that effectively, the listeners are motivated and application need not be the heavyhanded thing many fear. Indeed, as with Spurgeon, it may hardly be noticed even though it certainly is there.

Another note regarding Spurgeon... He often gave application fairly early in his sermons but ended with brilliant insights into the gospel and with celebration of Christ. Thus, the need to live for Christ was followed by the stuff that gives us power to actually do it. Smart.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 4, 2011)

Application should flow naturally from the text, it must be a "good and necessary consequence." If it meets those tests (and perhaps a few others) then it must be done. As has been said, preaching is not a Bible study, i.e., a mere survey of grammar and/or redemptive-historical facts. It is fundamentally the announcement of God's Word (the law and the gospel and the moral consequences of the law for believers).

The debate about "application" is really a debate about the third use of the law in preaching. On one side, too many preachers are in too big a hurry to get to the moral punchline. Sermons can easily devolve into de-contextualized angry rants. I've heard more than a few of those in Reformed churches. On the other side some have so over-reacted to these abuses as to banish application (as defined by Perkins), ostensibly in the interests of being more faithful to the text. In my experience, however, in this school, application is simply smuggled in. Some of the most abusive, manipulative sermons I've ever heard have been delivered by those who, ostensibly, do not believe in "application." The truth is that we all do but we need to learn to do it well, in submission to the text of holy Scripture, systematically, thoughtfully, carefully.

Some resources from the HB on preaching and application

Preaching and Application at Westminster Seminary California

Three Myths About WSC

A few words to student preachers

Any text without a context...


----------

