Do you believe in the Redemptive-Historical model of preaching?

Do you believe in the Redemptive-Historical model of preaching?

  • Yes, it's the only way to preach.

    Votes: 12 20.7%
  • Yes, it has it's place.

    Votes: 28 48.3%
  • No, it ignores application.

    Votes: 4 6.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • What's Redemptive-Historical preaching

    Votes: 13 22.4%

  • Total voters
    58
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bookmeister

Puritan Board Freshman
I would like a feel for where people stand on PB about this. I am fairly new and interested.

1. Yes, it's the only way to preach.
2. Yes, it has it's place.
3. No, it ignores application.
4. No
5. What's Redemptive-Historical preaching?
 

Knoxienne

Puritan Board Graduate
I voted that it has its place. Everything does. Redemptive history is a beautiful thing. It's God's story and our history.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
I think it, like more Theonomic preaching, is good in moderation. I don't feel it is healthy to adhere to any single theological construct, for there are good and edifying principles found in many.

Theognome
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
How does RH ignore application? I primarily preach RH and am very heavy on application.
 

ColdSilverMoon

Puritan Board Senior
I chose option #1, but considered #2. The Gospel is the core of Christian belief - thus I believe the RH model, in some form, is the only way to preach because it never looks past the work Christ has accomplished on the cross.
 

Knoxienne

Puritan Board Graduate
I guess the reason I chose 2 is because I'm one of these people who believes the whole Bible is the gospel - God telling us over and over again, Look to Me and live. :worms:
 

Jon Peters

Puritan Board Sophomore
Not familiar with this... can someone elaborate please?

Thanks
Redemptive Historical preaching does a couple of things. First, it seeks to place the text that is being taught in the context of the history of redemption. Thus, you'll find the language somewhat different, lots of eschatological this and that. The sermons can also sweep quite broadly. I had the feeling sometimes that it was too ambitious and lost the congregation.

Second, it is Christ centered. The whole of Scripture is about the work of Christ so every passage will be brought to bear on what it means in Christ.

Third, it will apply the text only when the text applies. So if one is preaching through Ephesians, if you're not at a particular point where Paul is making practical application, then the pastor will not either. However, it's not that you won't be directed to live a godly life. You will constantly hear of your status in Christ, and that is the reason given for why you should then live a godly life. They tend to avoid a lot of practical application because it can be moralistic.

I am open to correction on any of what I've said. My comments are born out of a couple of years under a prominent RH preacher (though that was 8 years ago).

I do think there are more moderate version of RH preaching. Some things I mentioned are common to many Reformed preachers. My experience with the more radical RH preachers is that you'll find a noticeable difference in style and language. I think it is a difficult style to pull off without sounding like you're lecturing. Vos' sermons are a perfect illustration. Some are wonderful; others are bone dry.
 

Rogerant

Puritan Board Freshman
I say, a double "YES" Historical Redemptive with "Christo-Centric" focus! Of course you can tell my my personal profile that I am somewhat bent in that direction by the picture of A.W. Pink on my page!

PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.

Christo-Centric interpretation looks for all the types in the O.T. that prefigure Christ and His work. Re: Moses, Joseph, David etc.

Historical Grammatical interpretation does not allow us to interpret the types in the O.T. unless they are interpreted by the N.T. authors. You must interpret everything in it's historical and cultural context.
 

Knoxienne

Puritan Board Graduate
I say, a double "YES" Historical Redemptive with "Christo-Centric" focus! Of course you can tell my my personal profile that I am somewhat bent in that direction by the picture of A.W. Pink on my page!

PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.

Christo-Centric interpretation looks for all the types in the O.T. that prefigure Christ and His work. Re: Moses, Joseph, David etc.

Historical Grammatical interpretation does not allow us to interpret the types in the O.T. unless they are interpreted by the N.T. authors. You must interpret everything in it's historical and cultural context.
I always thought GH and RH were the same thing. :confused: So, are you saying that RH is broader than GH in its interpretation, taking more liberties with OT texts than GH?

I learn something new every day here. What a load of fun! :)
 

Bookmeister

Puritan Board Freshman
Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.
 

Rogerant

Puritan Board Freshman
Here is an essay written by John Frame on the subject which I think is very helpful:
Ethics, Preaching and Biblical Theology

And here is a book I would recommend for those who wish to study the Hermeneutics behind it:
Amazon.com: Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation: Graeme Goldsworthy: Books
Yes that is an excellent book on the subject. There are these as well:

Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale

Him we Proclaim, Preaching Christ from all of Scriptures by Dennis e. Johnson

According to Plan by Graeme Goldsworthy

Preaching Christ in all of Scripture by Edmund P. Clowney

And anything written by A.W. Pink!
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.
So you have a problem with expository preaching?
 

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.
So you have a problem with expository preaching?
No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching
Okay, then I'm confused as to what other preaching there is. Expository and Topical are the two I'm familiar with.
 

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
RH and HG do not conflict, and both are to be used simultaneously. <evil grin>

The meaning in context of history is the only way to understand what God communicated, but it is also true that all of scripture speaks to the gospel of Christ. There is no either/or in this case, it is a both/and.
 

Knoxienne

Puritan Board Graduate
Wow, how encouraging. I am in the deep South here and had one pastor actually say to me, "I've never met a true RH before." I was afraid I was in the vast minority. I am glad to see otherwise.
So you have a problem with expository preaching?
No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching
Would you define moralistic preaching? I always thought moralism was the humanistic teaching, "Be good for goodness sake". Just trying to understand. :)
 

JWJ

Puritan Board Freshman
I too had trouble picking answer 1 or 2. In short, the fact that all the recorded sermons of the apostles including the book of Hebrews (which is a sermon) is strong testimony to how we should be preaching. Surely one can and should mix different “styles” and “approaches” but the goal and overall approach should be Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic in nature.

In short, no matter what verse, topic, or theme one is expounding the question: “What does this say about Christ?” must be front and center for both the preacher and the mature listeners. In other words, before one can truly and effectively apply the message in their life to the glory of Christ, they must first understand how it all connects and testifies to Christ.

In addition, not only should the preaching be Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic but so should every Christian’s hermeneutic. If every Christian would truly strive towards an Apostolic, Christocentric, Christotelic hermeneutic then I believe many issues of doctrine would cease. In particular, this includes the differences in theological systems (i.e., Dispensationalism, Progressive Disp., Promise Theology, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology) and especially the perennial debate of baptism (credo versus paedo).

As a minister of the gospel and teacher of many young “Timothy’s”, I make Redemptive Historical, Christocentric, and Christotelic hermeneutics front and center in equipping all the saints. Without this I would fail in my goal to present all mature in Christ (Col. 1:28).

Jim
 

Bookmeister

Puritan Board Freshman
So you have a problem with expository preaching?
No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching
Would you define moralistic preaching? I always thought moralism was the humanistic teaching, "Be good for goodness sake". Just trying to understand. :)
Moralism is "Dare to be a Daniel," or "What are the smooth stones in your life to slay the giants in your life," basically using the lives of biblical characters and telling the people they are examples for the listener to emulate. This is too much pressure to put on the hearers of the Word since Abraham, Moses, David, etc. are all types of Christ and reducing the narratives of these people, or even of Christ for that matter, to something we should imitate misses the whole point of the Bible. To tell listeners to imitate Christ, or a type of Christ, out of their own strength reduces the gospel to ethical effort.
 

Knoxienne

Puritan Board Graduate
No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching
Would you define moralistic preaching? I always thought moralism was the humanistic teaching, "Be good for goodness sake". Just trying to understand. :)
Moralism is "Dare to be a Daniel," or "What are the smooth stones in your life to slay the giants in your life," basically using the lives of biblical characters and telling the people they are examples for the listener to emulate. This is too much pressure to put on the hearers of the Word since Abraham, Moses, David, etc. are all types of Christ and reducing the narratives of these people, or even of Christ for that matter, to something we should imitate misses the whole point of the Bible. To tell listeners to imitate Christ, or a type of Christ, out of their own strength reduces the gospel to ethical effort.
Oh, okay. "Slaying the Giants in Your Life" with the David and Goliath account rings a bell. I remember the pastor (very RH!) in the first reformed church I went to warning us about that.

That's the type of preaching heard a lot on Christian radio - which I haven't listened to in years! Very shallow. :rolleyes: It's also heard in a lot of Junk Store self-help books and in many of those mega churches.

Thanks for the clarification. Your last sentence which I bolded was especially helpful. :)
 

TimV

Puritanboard Botanist
PS Matthias: you asked what that is. Historical redemptive interpretation is a method of "looking for Christ and his efficacious saving grace in all of scripture", especially the O.T. Because of Luke 24, we look for Him in all the passages in the history of the O.T.
From where I sit Historical Redemptive is a phrase like Post Modern, or Regulative Principle in Worship. That is to say that the phrase is really so broad that it verges on not having a specific meaning.

So, take

Lev 25:13 "In this year of jubilee each of you shall return to his property.
Lev 25:14 And if you make a sale to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.
Lev 25:15 You shall pay your neighbor according to the number of years after the jubilee, and he shall sell to you according to the number of years for crops
.

Now which interpretation is HR?

a) This is a type of the eternal inheritance that we believers have in Christ, and has nothing to do with economics

b) This is a really basic, common sense way of insuring the maximum percentage of self supporting land owners in a population, and goes a long way to prevent large numbers of poor, crime ridden urban populations that we see so commonly in third world countries.

c) This is mainly type of the eternal inheritance that we have in Christ, and it is illustrated by the common sense economic principle that the maximum number of self sufficient land owners provides the best social make up. Just like not muzzling an ox while it is treading out the grain, the primary reason for the law is to point to spiritual truths, but that doesn't mean muzzling an ox suddenly becomes a good thing.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
No, RH preaching is expository. I have a problem with moralistic preaching
Would you define moralistic preaching? I always thought moralism was the humanistic teaching, "Be good for goodness sake". Just trying to understand. :)
Moralism is "Dare to be a Daniel," or "What are the smooth stones in your life to slay the giants in your life," basically using the lives of biblical characters and telling the people they are examples for the listener to emulate. This is too much pressure to put on the hearers of the Word since Abraham, Moses, David, etc. are all types of Christ and reducing the narratives of these people, or even of Christ for that matter, to something we should imitate misses the whole point of the Bible. To tell listeners to imitate Christ, or a type of Christ, out of their own strength reduces the gospel to ethical effort.
Heb 12:1,2 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
I think preaching "Dare To Be Daniel" is edifying if it is followed by, "Look Unto Jesus The Author And Finisher Of Our Faith." Is that what you are saying?

In his book, "Christ Centered Preaching", Bryan Chapell talks about the FCF (Fallen Condition Focus) and how it is essential to every sermon. The FCF drives people to Christ. So you preach "Dare To Be Daniel" then preach "You Can't" then preach "Look Unto Jesus".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top