Application

[fredtgreco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...