# The Use of Visual Aids in Preaching



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 29, 2018)

I was asked by gentleman if I would ever show a picture or video as an illustration in delivering a sermon. The short answer is no. I never have and don't believe I ever would. That said, I was hoping some of you here could provide some thoughtful considerations on why this practice would be unbiblical, unhelpful, and/or harmful.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

I'm firmly against the use of visual aids in preaching.

The _Directory of Public Worship_ warns against overmuch use of gestures and vocal flourishes when it counsels that preaching should be done:

_5. Gravely, as becometh the word of God; shunning all such gesture, voice, and expressions, as may occasion the corruptions of men to despise him and his ministry._

The bottom line is that faith coming by hearing is the paradigm for preaching. Using visual aids is a departure from that paradigm.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 29, 2018)

The Word of God is sufficient.

Feel free to use visual aids in a lecture, but not in preaching.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

The "lively" preaching should stand on its own without necessitating images (Heidelberg 98, particularly referring to images of deity).

With that said, I don't see how using maps when appropriate would be forbidden.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 29, 2018)

"He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
~Matt. 18:2-5

Sounds like a visual aid to me.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 29, 2018)

So you put our Lord's object lesson in the same category as showing a clip from the film Rocky to illustrate spiritual warfare?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 29, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> So you put our Lord's object lesson in the same category as showing a clip from the film Rocky to illustrate spiritual warfare?



No, but I put it in the same category as the preacher pulling out something (a visual aid of some kind) to serve as an object lesson.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 29, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> So you put our Lord's object lesson in the same category as showing a clip from the film Rocky to illustrate spiritual warfare?



Of course not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 29, 2018)

Well James, my OP specifically asked about the use of projected images and movie clips as a part of sermon delivery. Your statement seemed to affirm their use by appealing to the Lord's object lesson. I am not sure what conclusion I was supposed draw from your remarks if you think showing a movie clip is problematic. If you do find it problematic, why? If not, what limiting principle would you use in determining their use?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 29, 2018)

A projected image of a map, as has already been mentioned, or other appropriately low key presentation of a location or concept. A projection or hand out of a list of books for further study. All for charities sake and nothing for shock value or things that show you are relevant.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Cedarbay (Mar 29, 2018)

A local church puts up the bible verses and sermon outline on a large screen as the pastor is preaching. As I age I find this helpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 29, 2018)

Chris,
I heard Robert Godfrey speak on this issue in the DVD series for the 500th celebration of the Reformation. In his lecture, he made a fantastic historical case that the visual was a clear departure from both the early church and Scripture (visual replacing the hearing) and that the primary thrust of the Reformation was one of worship, specifically the re-focus on hearing and the removal of the visual. It is available on YouTube or Ligonier's website.......

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## earl40 (Mar 29, 2018)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> "He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
> ~Matt. 18:2-5
> 
> Sounds like a visual aid to me.


In your opinion was this a teaching moment or preaching moment?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Mar 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> In your opinion was this a teaching moment or preaching moment?



There was apparently a largish group about, therefore I would say preaching. But I must qualify that in my mind there is a very fine line of differentiation between preaching and teaching. Matthew 4:23 - "Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people."


----------



## ZackF (Mar 29, 2018)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Of course not.


I pity da fool who does.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 29, 2018)

I am not sure how to apply the RPW as much of this stuff is recent. If someone wanted to be a stickler than microphones and amplifiers would fall under a same prohibition. I think signing or captioning for the deaf could be allowed but I find most visual effects and projectors sensational and unnecessary.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 29, 2018)

Jesus was not above taking a moment in time, and making it a teaching moment; or using a "visual aid" depending on the circumstance. I think it is legitimate to distinguish what he might have done differently in_ preaching_ from some other situation.

At some point, a visual aid ceases to be a minor (if helpful) illustration of the point, and becomes a point unto itself. I think the downside of any "video clip" makes it unsuitable for a sermon. To me, it fails the RPW test (authorization), it stokes the (wrong) visual tendencies of our idol-factory hearts, and it warps the verbal, speech-auditory function of preaching (as the term itself indicates). There's the_ pure_ preaching of the Word; and then there's hybridization.

I want to be careful. I don't myself think that making the speaker bigger on a screen, or screens generally are positive. But I won't object to a verse being posted up, especially if it saves people flipping through their Bibles to find it as the sermon continues--either way there's a distracting element. I suppose some preachers (depending on the audience size) may be able to use some gesture, or perhaps even something small in the hand for illustrative purposes.

But pantomime? Lying on the floor? Gymnastics? All that is theater, not rhetoric. Do the people need a map? Why not put a drawing on a bulletin insert? Not flashy, not a "shared experience." Not everyone will need or profit from it the same.

Jesus conjured mental ideas in people's minds (perhaps) based on their experience of the world. He preached out of doors, and may have pointed to creation. But he didn't build models, and he didn't have his disciples act our scenes of good or bad deeds. He could have, and he didn't; and there's no indication Paul or any other apostle was so inclined either.

"The medium is the message," means that we should identify (and carefully define) and protect preaching as the divinely approved instrument for gathering and edifying the church.

Reactions: Like 8 | Edifying 2


----------



## bookslover (Mar 29, 2018)

Many years ago, I attended a church where the preacher used an overhead projector (remember those?) to put up Scripture verses, maps, and other things while he preached. His visuals were always to the point and enhanced his sermons. I found it very helpful, especially as I was a new believer at the time (1980s).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 29, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I was asked by gentleman if I would ever show a picture or video as an illustration in delivering a sermon. The short answer is no. I never have and don't believe I ever would. That said, I was hoping some of you here could provide some thoughtful considerations on why this practice would be unbiblical, unhelpful, and/or harmful.



Seems to me that any time visuals or theatrics were used, they were commanded, eg. The temple decorations, the design of the ark, the Tabernacle (Bezalel and Oholiab were given the Spirit for their visual work), the illustrations by the prophets (eg. Ezekiel’s diorama, being tied in his house, Hosea and his wife, Isaiah walking naked).

The only visuals which Scripture now commends are baptism and the Lord’s Table, but Paul doesn’t seem to think anything further than Spirit-empowered preaching is necessary or useful.

Secondarily, people don’t separate the medium from the message, like Bruce says. Visuals and music do far more to shape your impression than you think. They are developed to grab attention and stimulate the mind in a certain way, and not necessarily spiritually. That may truly interfere with the ability to process message content.

At the least, I’d imagine nothing would ever be so helpful a visual as to see Christ Himself with our own eyes, especially as He appears in Revelation, but God doesn’t think it wise for this time. If that wouldn’t serve us, how will anything else?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Perhaps we should all go to church blindfolded. 

Seriously, though, if we can't distinguish between images of Christ or "saints"-- images that some pretend to worship Christ _through-- _and simple objective lesson visuals, maps, etc., I think we're simply blowing things out of proportion. Should we ever liken the kingdom of heaven to something we have seen? Wheat and tares? Mustard seeds? Leaven? When preaching on Matt. 22:10 would it be improper to take a nickel our of our pocket to demonstrate something about paying taxes? Can we point to the inscription "THE UNKNOWN GOD"? 

If we classify all these things as the "images" forbidden in our confessions, we make scripture contradict itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Paul1976 (Mar 29, 2018)

I can certainly understand why there is a reluctance to affirm the use of visual aides. There are plenty of examples where they are distracting from the point of exegeting and applying a passage rather than aiding in the audience understanding it. However, I would respectfully disagree with the idea of stating visuals are wrong in and of themselves simply because they can be misused. That approach strikes me as slightly legalistic when pastors should instead focus on how best to communicate Christ and His gospel from the text. Obviously, this CAN be done without visual aides. But, if an aid helps a pastor to better communicate, and (it seems to me from the above) doesn't violate any clear teaching of scripture, how can that be wrong? 

I understand the hesitance with visual aids. The Babylon Bee has an excellent article on how a pastor stayed up late Sat. PM to find the perfect scripture passage from which to exegate the Braveheart clip he'd planned his sermon around. (http://babylonbee.com/news/pastor-finds-perfect-bible-passage-illustrate-movie-clip/). I found the article amusing because of how unfortunately close it is to much of what passes for preaching today. However, the problem isn't specifically using a visual aid, but the lack of focus on the text in that approach. If the above pastor's elder board were to step in and ban the use of movie clips, that pastor probably wouldn't start preaching wonderful Christ-exhaulting sermons all of a sudden, but would instead find a way to introduce equally irrelevant illustrations, jokes and stories that would adhere to the rule, but wouldn't significantly improve his preaching. The one Joel Osteen sermon I watched (for educational purposes only) was entirely vocal, but had little (if anything) to say to the benefit of God's people.

One instance of "visuals" come to my mind from Ezekiel. Ezekiel build a model of Jerusalem and various siegeworks laid up against it and laid on his side for extended periods to present a visual of God's coming judgment against the city. I realize this isn't preaching, but I do think the pattern in scripture includes instances where God directs communication that is highly visual in nature.

-Paul


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> If we classify all these things as the "images" forbidden in our confessions, we make scripture contradict itself.


Fortunately, I am unaware of anyone making such claims. Are you aware of someone that is doing this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Fortunately, I am unaware of anyone making such claims. Are you aware of someone that is doing this?



I think some of the lines are getting blurry, although I concur that no one is making these claims at this point.

Good clarification, thanks!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 29, 2018)

I generally have PowerPoint slides that go along with my sermon, but I mainly use them for Scripture references. I started doing this because people were asking me if I could give them an outline that contained the Scripture references. I found it easier to make one short PowerPoint presentation than printing and distributing 100 paper outlines.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

It may be appropriate for teaching (outside of worship) to include any number of visual aids or mixed-media presentations. These can be very effective in all kinds of settings.

Preaching, on the other hand, is an act of _worship_. As such, it is rigidly governed by the RPW. Visual aids, being an altogether different media or mode of communication than speech, cannot be said to be a _circumstance _of preaching; any more than dance could be said to be a circumstance of singing.


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> It may be appropriate for teaching (outside of worship) to include any number of visual aids or mixed-media presentations. These can be very effective in all kinds of settings.
> 
> Preaching, on the other hand, is an act of _worship_. As such, it is rigidly governed by the RPW. Visual aids, being an altogether different media or mode of communication than speech, cannot be said to be a _circumstance _of preaching; any more than dance could be said to be a circumstance of singing.



For the sake of clarity, would you say that the use of a map or the projection of scripture on a screen are prohibited?


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> For the sake of clarity, would you say that the use of a map or the projection of scripture on a screen are prohibited?



For the sake of clarity, yes. I dare not authorize anything in worship that cannot be proven to be God's own desire; mere circumstances excepted.


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> For the sake of clarity, yes. I dare not authorize anything in worship that cannot be proven to be God's own desire; mere circumstances excepted.



Should congregants use their Bibles? Should the preacher tell the congregants to turn to such and such a place in their Bibles?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> Perhaps we should all go to church blindfolded.
> 
> Seriously, though, if we can't distinguish between images of Christ or "saints"-- images that some pretend to worship Christ _through-- _and simple objective lesson visuals, maps, etc., I think we're simply blowing things out of proportion. Should we ever liken the kingdom of heaven to something we have seen? Wheat and tares? Mustard seeds? Leaven? When preaching on Matt. 22:10 would it be improper to take a nickel our of our pocket to demonstrate something about paying taxes? Can we point to the inscription "THE UNKNOWN GOD"?
> 
> If we classify all these things as the "images" forbidden in our confessions, we make scripture contradict itself.



I personally hope you’ll stay out of churches where you can point to the inscription, “To the unknown God” 

In a number of those Jesus did give an illustration and it is effective, but where does he have the object itself in hand while preaching? As for the coin, it was used in dialogue when He was approached with a trap question, but not in a message.

I think a practical concern is the burden a pastor has to bear in coming up with visuals. They are useful in right context, but still highly subjective. And if it’s not well done, people will remember how cheesy or awkward the visual was, and not how good the content of the sermon was. Seems like it’d be a little much for a pastor to sweat it out in laboring over the Word and then having to find interesting pictures or clips on top of it.

And having done movie clips for messages for a youth pastor (yes, I own my guilt), it’s tedious. That time—both in finding the clips and editing them for presentation—would have been better spent on things we know God has promised to bless.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 29, 2018)

I don't see the point or need for using visual tools in worship. Does it go against the RPW? I don't know if we can go that far with this. I think that if everyone decided it did go against the RPW then we would have to reconsider pastors using microphones etc.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> Should congregants use their Bibles? Should the preacher tell the congregants to turn to such and such a place in their Bibles?



1) The congregants turning in their Bibles to read passages as they are preached is not a part of worship. It's not an offering to God to flip to the right page and read along with the preaching.

2) Telling congregants where they may turn in their Bibles as an aside while preaching is not part of the actual preaching, nor is it part of worship. It's just as circumstantial as a minister telling the people which Psalm is going to be sung next.

However, the use of visual aids is very much intended to enhance the element of preaching, and not just in a circumstantial way (like microphones and sound systems), but in a spiritually significant way. To make use of them is to branch into a new form of preaching that God has not authorized.

Part of me is astonished this is (seemingly) so difficult to understand. A minister pulling out a visual aid to use while preaching is no less impertinent than if he were to break out into interpretive dance in order to communicate to the people.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Mar 29, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Well James, my OP specifically asked about the use of _projected_ images and movie clips



No, you didn't. 

What you said in your original post:



C. M. Sheffield said:


> I was asked by gentleman if I would ever show a picture or video as an illustration in delivering a sermon.



Note the lack of the word "projected".

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## KMK (Mar 29, 2018)

Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Ecc 7:16

Sprague says, "Be as zealous as you please in the acquisition of every species of useful knowledge. But be not wise in your own conceit. Be not wise above that which is written." Danger of Being Over Wise Copyright © 1997 Naphtali Press

We should avoid either extreme in the use or non-use of visual aids of any form, for both lead to absurdity.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> 1) The congregants turning in their Bibles to read passages as they are preached is not a part of worship. It's not an offering to God to flip to the right page and read along with the preaching.
> 
> 2) Telling congregants where they may turn in their Bibles as an aside while preaching is not part of the actual preaching, nor is it part of worship. It's just as circumstantial as a minister telling the people which Psalm is going to be sung next.
> 
> ...



Blake,

I hope that in the future it will become clear to you that you are creating dogmatic categories that are _highly subjective_. I could come up with my own set of carefully crafted categories that would justify another practice.

I think you should tread more lightly...

Blessings,

Tim


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Harley said:


> I personally hope you’ll stay out of churches where you can point to the inscription, “To the unknown God”
> 
> In a number of those Jesus did give an illustration and it is effective, but where does he have the object itself in hand while preaching? As for the coin, it was used in dialogue when He was approached with a trap question, but not in a message.
> 
> ...



You present very good _practical_ considerations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> I hope that in the future it will become clear to you that you are creating dogmatic categories that are _highly subjective_. I could come up with my own set of carefully crafted categories that would justify another practice.
> 
> I think you should tread more lightly...



I find your view of the categories I have presented to be highly subjective. It could be more helpful if you explained _why_ you think my categories are subjective? When it comes to worship, I really only have two: spiritually significant or not spiritually significant.

Everything that God has commanded for our worship must be spiritually significant. Everything outside of what God commanded, things which have to be determined in order for worship to take place, must _not_ be spiritually significant (but as our Confession states, should still be determined according to the light of nature and general rules of Scripture).

I actually don't care to defend the practice of people flipping through their Bibles and reading along with the preaching or the practice of pastors telling the people where they may turn in Scripture during the preaching. While I don't do either of these, I am prepared to see them as not spiritually significant (for some of the reasons I stated above). If you think that's a massive inconsistency for someone who stands opposed to visual aids in preaching, fine. I really don't care to defend those practices. You pointing to what you say is an inconsistent application on my part is not the same thing as refuting what I am saying about visual aids being unauthorized.

What I'm _not_ prepared to accept is that holding up visual aids or presenting people with maps or images on a screen while preaching can be spiritually _insignificant_ to preaching. When this happens, the preacher is asking the people to direct their gaze toward something visual, and to allow an image they see with their eyes make an impression upon their souls, or in some way enhance the spiritual activity of preaching. We _know this to be_ a spiritually significant activity when done in worship, because it is a major part of the sacraments Christ has given us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> ...the preacher is asking the people to direct their gaze toward something visual, and to allow an image they see with their eyes make an impression upon their souls...



You forbade projecting scripture on a screen. Do we not want the words of scripture to leave an impression on the soul? What am I missing?


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

timfost said:


> You forbade projecting scripture on a screen. Do we not want the words of scripture to leave an impression on the soul? What am I missing?



You're missing that I used the word "image", which does not generally include printed text.


----------



## timfost (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> You're missing that I used the word "image", which does not generally include printed text.



Please see post #27.


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

Me saying that I'm prepared to allow for printed text to be visible during preaching but not prepared to allow for images or visual aids is not something I care to dwell on. You're entitled to think it is a contradiction. Even if is, I don't see how my fictional predicament of showing printed text (I don't) can authorize the use of actual images in preaching, where God has not authorized them.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Mar 29, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> You're entitled to think it is a contradiction


To be fair to Tim, it is not a subjective "entitlement"; you did contradict yourself. In post 27, you specifically said that the projection of scripture on a screen was prohibited. In post 38, you charged Tim with missing the point of what you said when, in fact, he did not. Either you believe the projection of scripture is prohibited or you don't - but to say both is, in fact, a contradiction!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> To be fair to Tim, it is not a subjective "entitlement"; you did contradict yourself. In post 27, you specifically said that the projection of scripture on a screen was prohibited. In post 38, you charged Tim with missing the point of what you said when, in fact, he did not. Either you believe the projection of scripture is prohibited or you don't - but to say both is, in fact, a contradiction!



Whoops, I had forgotten that Tim had asked me about "use of a map *or the projection of scripture* on a screen". Sorry for my confusion!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 29, 2018)

Is printed text a "visual aid" or not? I don't have strong feelings about this question. If anyone thinks it is and would like to make that case to me, I'm happy to continue not using printed text along with preaching.

When can we actually talk about images, objects, and video clips used in preaching?


----------



## earl40 (Mar 30, 2018)

OPC'n said:


> I don't see the point or need for using visual tools in worship. Does it go against the RPW? I don't know if we can go that far with this. I think that if everyone decided it did go against the RPW then we would have to reconsider pastors using microphones etc.



When I considered the use of microphones in the past I have always considered them to be circumstance. I am sure there are threads that discuss such, and am fairly confident my belief they are circumstance would be born out...(almost afraid to look)


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 30, 2018)

Can someone tell me why _so many_ discussions on the RPW seem to go like this?

Person A says that if we were being circumspect and consistent in our application of the RPW we would _not_ be doing ____X____ _in our worship services, because it (whatever it is) is a departure from what God has authorized.

Person B says that if Person A doesn't believe ____X_____ is permissible, then they have a pretty glaring inconsistency if they think ____Y____ _is allowed.

How is that supposed to answer Person A? Especially if ____Y____ _is something that's clearly circumstantial (I have had people ask me if I believe it is in keeping with the RPW to _wear socks_ to worship). It always makes me wonder why Person B thinks that if they can show Person A that they have "opened the door" for a less-strict RPW by doing ____Y_____, then they should not be so scrupulous about doing ____X____ _in worship.

If Person B thinks they are doing a service for Person A (who they regard as a weaker brother), why wouldn't they _use Scripture_ to remove Person A's scruples by showing them precisely where God has shown in his word that it is right in his sight to do ____X____ _in worship?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Mar 30, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> Can someone tell me why _so many_ discussions on the RPW seem to go like this?
> 
> Person A says that if we were being circumspect and consistent in our application of the RPW we would _not_ be doing ____X____ _in our worship services, because it (whatever it is) is a departure from what God has authorized.
> 
> ...



I think the issue you are asking about is that Person B believes that X and Y are categorically the same or similar enough that the reasoning for restricting/permitting X would apply to Y; Person A does not and doesn't understand why they would relate the two items together.

So it feels like everyone's talking past everyone and people get upset.

Just my thought. People get confused between what's a circumstance and what's an element all the time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 30, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> why wouldn't they _use Scripture_ to remove Person A's scruples by showing them precisely where God has shown in his word that it is right in his sight to do ____X____ _in worship?



This question still stands. It would seem like the simplest way to solve the matter. Failure to do this (for X or Y or anything in between) means to me that there’s no ground to perform whatever it is as an act of worship.


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Mar 30, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> This question still stands. It would seem like the simplest way to solve the matter. Failure to do this (for X or Y or anything in between) means to me that there’s no ground to perform whatever it is as an act of worship.



Yes, but that would require work! It's *soooo* much easier to do a _tu quoque_!

But in the end it still just pushes the discussion back again.

It's the confusion between circumstance and element, and many circumstances are not in the Scripture, like microphones as Earl mentioned above in Post #44. So then it boils down to explaining why X is / is not a circumstance and is therefore permissible / forbidden in worship. I'm not sure if there's really a way to handle it other than to go case-by-case. It sounds like you'd prefer to do it that way as long as they're going case-by-case through Scripture to make their point, though?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Parakaleo (Mar 30, 2018)

sc_q_jayce said:


> It sounds like you'd prefer to do it that way as long as they're going case-by-case through Scripture to make their point, though?



What I would most prefer is people being completely unwilling to perform anything in worship without assurance from Scripture that it is an authorized and lawful activity, with the Lord’s own testimony that it is right in his sight in New Covenant worship. There is far too much “I think it’s proper” and “I don’t see anything wrong with” when it comes to God’s worship.


----------



## sc_q_jayce (Mar 30, 2018)

Parakaleo said:


> What I would most prefer is people being completely unwilling to perform anything in worship without assurance from Scripture that it is an authorized and lawful activity, with the Lord’s own testimony that it is right in his sight in New Covenant worship. There is far too much “I think it’s proper” and “I don’t see anything wrong with” when it comes to God’s worship.



I get what you're saying, but what I was trying to say was when you're engaging in these kinds of discussion you would rather work with people who are at least trying to make scriptural arguments rather than by opinion/reason? That's what I was gathering, at least. I apologize if I continue to misunderstand!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brendanchatt (Apr 1, 2018)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> "He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
> ~Matt. 18:2-5
> 
> Sounds like a visual aid to me.



I've heard that before about this. I just don't see how that sets an example for our preaching.



KMK said:


> Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Ecc 7:16
> 
> Sprague says, "Be as zealous as you please in the acquisition of every species of useful knowledge. But be not wise in your own conceit. Be not wise above that which is written." Danger of Being Over Wise Copyright © 1997 Naphtali Press
> 
> We should avoid either extreme in the use or non-use of visual aids of any form, for both lead to absurdity.



I don't know that this is a good place for this. Maybe it's a bit extreme =). I just don't see how one derives the use of props from example, command, or good and necessary consequence from scripture.


----------

