# Redemptive Historical Preaching



## Barnpreacher (Sep 8, 2007)

Good Evening,

I would like to start out this thread by making a confession so some do not think me to be a liar. A couple of weeks ago I got frustrated in a baptism thread (anybody else ever been there?) and I announced that it was time for me to stop posting on the board. Of course the one thread wasn't the only reason, as my life circumstances were a bit overwhelming at the time. They still are, but after taking a couple of weeks to clear my head I realized the best thing for me to do is to steer clear of the baptism threads for a while. A long while!  But there is no sense in me not being able to get on here and ask questions of brothers whom I respect very much. 

This quote by Rich earlier today smacked me upside the head.



> There are a lot of generic Calvinists who want to interact on this board but they come with a head full of steam because, perhaps in the circles they run in, everybody thinks they really know the Scriptures. Some of them learn the hard way here that there are people that are much better studied on more details than they conceivably imagined in their small circle. The smart ones figure it out quickly and decide to start listening instead of reacting



As I read that I thought, a lot of what Rich is saying is talking right to me. I've been humbled enough in my 14 years in the ministry to say I don't believe I came here with a head full of steam, but it didn't take me long to figure out a lot of you have an understanding of the Scriptures that I don't have. In my circle, as Rich was talking about, all we learned about and concentrated on was dispensationalism and end times. Not a good mix.  So, then as God opened my eyes to reformed doctrine I can definitely see exactly what Rich was saying in his quote. The sad thing is, that the leader of my former circle (Ruckman, for those of you who know him) would tell his students that after they graduate from his school they would know more than 99% of Christians in the world. That is so laughable because those guys would be humbled so fast on this board when it comes to doctrine and biblical interpretation. But most of them wouldn't respond by admitting this like Rich said, they would respond by calling you a name. Real "Christian" like.

Anyway, I'm taking the long way of saying thanks for the quote Rich. I realize I don't have to stop asking questions here just because I haven't made up my mind on the baptism issue etc. I'm 5 years in on the Reformed faith. That means I'm new to the Reformed faith and mostly I'm just looking for answers when I ask questions. With that said I hope everybody can remember that when I ask a question, because I think part of the reason why discussions turn sour is because people come with their presupps about what the other person is writing too often. Just my 

Now my question concerns Redemptive Historical preaching and hermeneutics. I was reading Frame tonight on the subject and he said this



> As I said above, however, I don’t believe that every sermon must be about
> redemptive history. If a congregation is well-informed about the biblical relation of
> grace and works, I don’t see why the pastor might not occasionally focus on, say,
> an ethical text, without dwelling at great length on the redemptive-historical
> ...


 http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engl...~Frame.Preaching,Ethics,Biblical_Theology.pdf

My question is simple. What is the best reference to help come to a better understanding of the redemptive-historical setting that Frame speaks of? Does the view of the setting change between different parties?


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2007)

Good Redemptive Historical preaching references include:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Centered-Preaching-Redeeming-Expository-Sermon/dp/0801027985/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8911062-1719014?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189302402&sr=8-1"]Christ Centered Preaching[/ame] by Bryan Chapell
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Preaching-Christ-Old-Testament-Hermeneutical/dp/0802844499/ref=sid_dp_dp/103-8911062-1719014?ie=UTF8&qid=1189302402&sr=8-1"]Preaching Christ from the Old Testament[/ame] by Griedanus
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Preaching-Christ-Scripture-Edmund-Clowney/dp/158134452X/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-8911062-1719014?ie=UTF8&qid=1189302402&sr=8-1"]Preaching Christ from all of Scripture[/ame] by Clowney

A good website for this view of preaching is:
http://www.two-age.org/

Note: I am not a proponent of heavy R-H preaching, but you should have the best resources on this.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 8, 2007)

Wow...a great post we all can learn from.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Sep 8, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Wow...a great post we all can learn from.



  Soli Deo Gloria





fredtgreco said:


> Good Redemptive Historical preaching references include:
> 
> Christ Centered Preaching by Bryan Chapell
> Preaching Christ from the Old Testament by Griedanus
> ...



O.k., so help me out here Fred if you don't mind. And you don't have to do it tonight because I know you have a busy Lord's Day ahead of you tomorrow. What about heavy R-H preaching concerns you?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2007)

If I may answer my 2 cents:

Naturally, preaching should be Christ-centered. That goes without saying. Unfortunately, some people do not want you to offer any imperatives in the sermon--that's law. That's not giving them Christ. 

This doesn't even need a rebuttal. to use a phrase from Rich a long time ago: That's like saying we shouldn't teach our children to read because Christ is the Perfect Word.


----------



## fredtgreco (Sep 8, 2007)

Ryan,

I don't have time now for more - although I think I will likely put some of these thoughts on paper for the Planting Old School churches blog soon. I'm working on matters for Sunday, and will head to bed soon. But I do have some initial thoughts in this thread here, which may help as a starting point.

As I said there, it is not a matter of heresy or right or wrong, as much as proper balance.

Have a good Lord's Day.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Sep 8, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> Ryan,
> 
> I don't have time now for more - although I think I will likely put some of these thoughts on paper for the Planting Old School churches blog soon. I'm working on matters for Sunday, and will head to bed soon. But I do have some initial thoughts in this thread here, which may help as a starting point.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link, Fred. You have a good Lord's Day as well, my brother.




Barnpreacher said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...a great post we all can learn from.
> ...



BTW - Joel, I wasn't shaking and cheering to my post, but rather to your kind reaction to my post.




Spear Dane said:


> If I may answer my 2 cents:
> 
> Naturally, preaching should be Christ-centered. That goes without saying. Unfortunately, some people do not want you to offer any imperatives in the sermon--that's law. That's not giving them Christ.
> 
> This doesn't even need a rebuttal. to use a phrase from Rich a long time ago: That's like saying we shouldn't teach our children to read because Christ is the Perfect Word.



J,

I have a question on your response, but it may have to wait till tomorrow. Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2007)

I am not knocking RH. For over one year I read primarily biblical theology and narrative theology. Maybe overdid it, but I know some. I think Vos is overrated at times. Ridderbos is wonderful and wonderful. Edmund Clowney couldn't be boring if he tried. Everything Clowney writes is spiritually charged. 

But there is a tendency among some reformed people to want only RH preaching, much to the neglect of Christian ethics and any practical guide to sanctification. Their ethics reduces to a "the spirit will lead you," which is true in a proper context.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 8, 2007)

> BTW - Joel, I wasn't shaking and cheering to my post, but rather to your kind reaction to my post.



Ryan...no explanation needed brother...I understood what you meant and I did learn much from your OP.

Bradford...what specifically makes you feel that Vos is overrated....I know you don't mean he is not worthwhile, but I am interested in seeing where you think he is deficient.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Sep 8, 2007)

Barnpreacher,

You asked:



> What is the best reference to help come to a better understanding of the redemptive-historical setting that Frame speaks of?



John Frame says it is WSCal professor Dr. Dennis Johnson's new book Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from all the Scriptures:



> _Him We Proclaim_ is by far the most comprehensive study of what the Bible says about preaching. . .The book also gives a clear and full account of the hermeneutical questions that preachers must deal with. Johnson's arguments are cogent, his evaluations sound. *If I could have only one book on preaching, this would be the one.*



To be sure, people can do redemptive-historical preaching poorly, even very poorly. To see how it should be done check out this book. 

From the back:



> Challenging modern preachers to expound the Bible like Peter and Paul. _Him we Proclaim_ *makes the hermeneutical and historical case for a return to apostolic preaching*--preaching that is Christ-centered, redemptive-historical, missiologically communicated, and grounded in grace. But moving beyond theory, _Him We Proclaim_ provides examples of how this method applies to Old and New Testament genres, from history and law to psalm and prophecy to *doctrine and exhortation*.



BTW, Dr. Johnson dedicated it to his mentor Edmund Clowney.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 8, 2007)

sotzo said:


> > BTW - Joel, I wasn't shaking and cheering to my post, but rather to your kind reaction to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Bradford...what specifically makes you feel that Vos is overrated....I know you don't mean he is not worthwhile, but I am interested in seeing where you think he is deficient.



His philosophy of "why say something in 3 pages when you can say it in 100?" 

_The Pauline Eschatology_: Eschatology structures theology. I just used 3 words to sum up the book. The book is over 300 pages long.

_Biblical Theology_: Revelation interprets Redemption. 3 words again, over 350 pages. 

Fortunately Old Testament Eschatology is quite short.


----------



## sotzo (Sep 9, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > > BTW - Joel, I wasn't shaking and cheering to my post, but rather to your kind reaction to my post.
> ...



Yeah, I know what you mean. The Reformed tradition is filled with alot of this...interestingly, Calvin seemed to use more brevity than his successors like Vos, et al. Van Til is another one that could carry on with the same argument long after his point was made. When I first read Van Til's epistemology I felt like there had to be something I was missing beyond his primary point on presuppositions governing worldview. Bahnsen boiled it all down and honed it like a razor which I thought brought out the true power Van Til had left untapped.


----------



## KMK (Sep 9, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...a great post we all can learn from.
> ...



As for the Chapell book, which I am currently reading, his point seems to be that if you are true to the context of a biblical passage then its place in R-H will naturally come through because the context of the whole Bible is R-H.


----------



## MW (Sep 9, 2007)

The Redemptive-Historical school has much that is informative in terms of the thology behind the history; but regrettably it tends to be a-historical, not concerned enough with actual events or what might be called the space-time continuum. Hence there is a neglect of things like chronology and harmony. Also some disparagement is given to character studies, because the persons involved in the history are seen to be nothing more than players on a stage, adding only to the drama of redemption. Then there is the somewhat tenuous treatment of what is called wisdom literature, where it appears there is little attention to the progress of history; so in the R-H method everything becomes wisdom personified, Who helps men to find clues to God's redemptive plan. Just some things to be wary of. Not that everyone who espouses the R-H method falls into these, but it is a tendency which could be somewhat destructive if allowed free reign.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Sep 10, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The Redemptive-Historical school has much that is informative in terms of the thology behind the history; but regrettably it tends to be a-historical, not concerned enough with actual events or what might be called the space-time continuum. Hence there is a neglect of things like chronology and harmony. Also some disparagement is given to character studies, because the persons involved in the history are seen to be nothing more than players on a stage, adding only to the drama of redemption. Then there is the somewhat tenuous treatment of what is called wisdom literature, where it appears there is little attention to the progress of history; so in the R-H method everything becomes wisdom personified, Who helps men to find clues to God's redemptive plan. Just some things to be wary of. Not that everyone who espouses the R-H method falls into these, but it is a tendency which could be somewhat destructive if allowed free reign.




O.k., so are we talking about just not forcing the R-H method into a passage? In other words, five years ago when I was steeped into dispensationalism I would have frowned upon the R-H system. Now, I want to temper myself and not go too far the other direction. 

So, what are examples of historical preaching that do not full under the method of R-H preaching? I would think that all the chronology and harmony of history fall under the Covenant of Grace, therefore how can you preach a sermon without touching upon that in some way? No?


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 10, 2007)

The Banner of Truth Magazine ran a few articles on this...bear with me...

I couldn't find my copies but there were three articles by Stefan T. Lindblad, one in Issue 500, May 2005, one in Issue 502, July 2005 and the other in Issue 505, October 2005.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 10, 2007)

You might be interested to listen to A Critique of Redemptive-Historical Preaching by Prof. John Carrick at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.


----------



## MW (Sep 10, 2007)

Barnpreacher said:


> So, what are examples of historical preaching that do not full under the method of R-H preaching? I would think that all the chronology and harmony of history fall under the Covenant of Grace, therefore how can you preach a sermon without touching upon that in some way? No?



R-H method shouldn't be equated with classic covenant theology.

One example of historical preaching would be a character study on the life of Elijah, in which the preacher brings out certain aspects of his faith in God. Or one might preach on Proverbs with the intention to show the practical aspects of godliness.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 10, 2007)

CJ_Chelpka said:


> WSCal professor Dr. Dennis Johnson's new book Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from all the Scriptures:



Just finished it last week, and I would highly recommend it to all. Much of what is in the book is a summary of our homiletics courses from WSC, but there is a good deal else as well, especially in his evaluation of the history of hermeneutical approaches as applied to the preaching of the church, as well as a great (and involved - serious preaching preparation should be hard work!) outline of all of the elements that one should consider in preaching preparation in the first appendix.

He provides a great argument for those who would seek to apply the apostolic hermeneutic and homiletic to their preaching in a way that is often looked down upon in evangelical circles due to the overwhelming influence of both enlightenment thought and dispensational dogma upon our approach to reading the Scriptures.

Very instructive, especially if you did not have the opportunity to sit under this teaching during your seminary years.


----------

