# Carl Trueman On Luther's Marks of a Good Preacher and a Word on R-H Preaching



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 20, 2010)

This has been an excellent set of blog posts by Carl Trueman on Ref 21 concerning Luther's thoughts on good preaching. I recommend reading them all. This latest one has quite a biting critique (in a way only Dr. Trueman can do) of Redemptive-Historical preaching that he notes will lead to some grumbling e-mails. 

Here is a taste:



> I thought of this a few weeks ago when visiting at another church. At the time when the sermon was meant to be preached, the pastor gave a fine lecture on the Bible a good, redemptive historical exposition of an Old Testament passage. The congregation waited politely for the abracadabra-hey-presto! moment when, like a bunny from a magician’s top hat, Jesus is pulled as if by magic from the chosen Old Testament passage. And, hey presto, there he was, right on cue, where he’d never been seen before! — though there were no gasps of amazement, as the congregation had, I presumed, seen the trick performed a thousand times before with other texts. The old `I bet you never saw Jesus there before’ gets a bit predictable and tiresome when its the only application, I guess. This was truly a lecture and no sermon.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 20, 2010)

That is a very good article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 20, 2010)

No problem.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 20, 2010)

Good on Trueman for this critique!


----------



## Jack K (Aug 20, 2010)

I liked the article, but didn't read it as being against redemptive-historical preaching per se. It is possible to bring a redemptive-historical approach to preaching, and still be appropriately passionate and confrontational, bringing listeners before God. Trueman seemed, to me, to be deploring an empty sort of preaching that mostly celebrates how clever the preacher is in bringing a passage around to Christ. Fair enough. But one can also be redemptive-historical and Christ-centered and _still be a preacher_, including confronting where necessary, and I've heard a lot of good sermons in that vein.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 20, 2010)

Interestingly, that was the same criticism that the White Horse Inn made about some forms of Redemptive Historical preaching. Riddlebarger noted that he was uncomfortable with any "...this represents Christ..." applications that the NT authors don't draw out. I share the concern that an increasingly common misuse of RH preaching seems to be a step backward into the allegorical method of the medieval Church and the literal sense of the Word is being muted.


----------



## dudley (Aug 20, 2010)

*I like the quote from the article and agree*

I like the quote from the article and agree “confrontational preaching of the Luther kind, a kind truly built on an understanding of the doctrine of justification as a living, personal reality, not a mere concept, and which in turn actually built a Reformation.” 

In the Gospel of Matthew 22:37-38 (37) Jesus said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' (38) This is the first and great commandment. 

I believe this command leaves very little out in terms of our devotion to God. It involves the service, obedience, and worship of the great God who is the Creator of all. The dictionary definition of worship says it involves intense admiration, adoration, honor, and devotion to someone or something. 

I believe worship is our response to our God. The service and the preaching of the Gospel and the sermon must be done in a way that exemplifies through Scripture that salvation is by the Grace of God alone and through our Faith alone in Christ alone that we give all praise as it should be for the Greater Glory of God alone. It should center on Christ’s redemptive act on Calvary and the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2010)

I always like the WHI. I also deplore allegory, which too often makes our own men sound like Origen--an example of "overcorrection."

However, if one cannot find in Joseph, son of Jacob, a type of Christ--simply because no NT writer makes an explicit connection--in all honesty, the "how-to" lesson (for finding the expectation of Christ) has not been well-ingrained. The connections are not esoteric, no not in the least. They are swimming all over the surface of the narrative.

That is the Christ we are seeking--the One whom Israel could see staring back at them from the text, if only they had spiritual eyes, and prayed for a glimmering of light in their dim age.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 21, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I always like the WHI. I also deplore allegory, which too often makes our own men sound like Origen--an example of "overcorrection."
> 
> However, if one cannot find in Joseph, son of Jacob, a type of Christ--simply because no NT writer makes an explicit connection--in all honesty, the "how-to" lesson (for finding the expectation of Christ) has not been well-ingrained. The connections are not esoteric, no not in the least. They are swimming all over the surface of the narrative.
> 
> That is the Christ we are seeking--the One whom Israel could see staring back at them from the text, if only they had spiritual eyes, and prayed for a glimmering of light in their dim age.


 
Amen to that.

I would say allegory is only one way to be Christ-centered or redemptive-historical from the Old Testament, and one of the most questionable. Church history is full of bad allegorical preaching.

When I teach, preach or write from the Old Testament, I often bring the topic around to Christ. But I don't use allegory and I hope I'm not just trying to be clever. I show how the passage's theme finds fullness in Christ, how the story leads finally to Christ, how promises are fulfilled or frustrations lifted. Occasionally I'll acknowledge typography that isn't mentioned in the New Testament, as in the example above, but I'm always extra careful in such situations. I think, naturally, that this way to do it is the right way, but it's good to discuss this and be sharpened.

Yes, many preachers have pointed to Christ badly. But not to point to him at all violates Jesus' own instructions for understanding the Scriptures.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I always like the WHI. I also deplore allegory, which too often makes our own men sound like Origen--an example of "overcorrection."
> 
> However, if one cannot find in Joseph, son of Jacob, a type of Christ--simply because no NT writer makes an explicit connection--in all honesty, the "how-to" lesson (for finding the expectation of Christ) has not been well-ingrained. The connections are not esoteric, no not in the least. They are swimming all over the surface of the narrative.
> 
> That is the Christ we are seeking--the One whom Israel could see staring back at them from the text, if only they had spiritual eyes, and prayed for a glimmering of light in their dim age.


 
I don't want to say I disagree but, even with Joseph, care must be taken.

One of the better ways I've seen Biblical Theology described is to ask: What time is it in Redemptive History?

Clearly, we see the OT Saints trusting in the Promise that had been so far revealed and studying in what ways their own prophecies might be light to us (as Peter notes).

I've been preparing for an exhortation on Psalm 51 and find Calvin's use of redemptive history in his commentaries very helpful. He doesn't try to pull Christ out of a hat everywhere but notes, strongly, the Gospel hopes of David given the light he had and the shadows of the OT sacrifices that pointed beyond themselves.

We are able to read back that longing and hope with our NC eyes without turning David into Christ everywhere he appears.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, I just wrestle with the border line and it seems some have used RH as a warrant to abandon GNC. Carl Trueman echoes Riddlebarger's criticism that some RH teaching seems to be an obligatory "rabbit out of a hat" at the end of a sermon rather than dealing with the contours of redemptive history as they are unveiled.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2010)

Here's an example of what I've seen done with Joseph (some warranted, some questionable):


> 9.	Joseph
> 
> a.	Loved by his father
> i.	Many colored coat was a special coat – evidence of his father’s love for Him
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Aug 21, 2010)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't want to say I disagree but, even with Joseph, care must be taken.
> 
> One of the better ways I've seen Biblical Theology described is to ask: What time is it in Redemptive History?
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps in other places; in the article about Luther Trueman isn't so much concerned with exegetical method as with the experimental quality of preaching. Hence the note that it shouldn't be the _only_ application. So later he remarks:


> The law and gospel were objective declarations -- and yet they tore hearers apart and put them back together again as they were preached, a point of which Luther was only too personally aware and which flavoured everything he did in the pulpit, from overall sermon structure to tone of voice and all points in between.


Questions of method aside (and thinking that the explicit NT applications of the OT to Christ are the only places to legitimately see Him aside does seem, as Bruce said, to be missing the point of the hermeneutical example the apostles provide), I think you could restate Trueman's point by saying that current redemptive-historical preaching is inadequate, not so much because it finds Christ where He isn't, but because it simply doesn't rise from lecturing to preaching. The answer wouldn't seem to be to find less of Christ, but to understand better the relationship between the Head and the body, and to bear in mind what Mr. Winzer has called the "redemptive-moral" at the same time.


----------



## Austin (Aug 21, 2010)

I loved Trueman's article. (Anything about Luther is usually good!) But in line with the current conversation, I think it is always best to remember that all of Scripture is "Good News," and thus "Gospel." By definition, then, all Scripture is about Jesus; it's just a matter of determining how. As someone here has noted, it is always best to start with looking at the passage by asking, 1st, what did it say to its original hearers, 2nd, how is it fulfilled/illuminated by Christ, & 3rd, what then does it say to my hearers today? 

(Of course, this makes a nice 3 point outline, though one should always be cautious about being formulaic. An easily anticipated sermon outline can easily become boring, and thus not be useful.)


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Aug 21, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I always like the WHI. I also deplore allegory, which too often makes our own men sound like Origen--an example of "overcorrection."
> 
> However, if one cannot find in Joseph, son of Jacob, a type of Christ--simply because no NT writer makes an explicit connection--in all honesty, the "how-to" lesson (for finding the expectation of Christ) has not been well-ingrained. The connections are not esoteric, no not in the least. They are swimming all over the surface of the narrative.
> 
> That is the Christ we are seeking--the One whom Israel could see staring back at them from the text, if only they had spiritual eyes, and prayed for a glimmering of light in their dim age.


 
For a link between Joseph and Christ, compare Mark 12:7 in the Textus Receptus with Genesis 37:20 in the LXX. (Compliments of Dean Burgeon.)


----------

