Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is there anyone still using Perkins' method today?
Are we all ignoring the obvious here?Hi
What is the best homiletic method in a nutshell?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps a small town pastor of a small church in one our fine presbyterian micro-denominations.Are we all ignoring the obvious here?
First, I'd like to know what preacher's gonna fit in a nutshell?!
Robert, I know you are a Presbyterian; but are you talking about the type of preaching associated with Heidelberg Catechism preaching?I actually think we need less verse-by-verse exposition and more theological preaching. I worry sometimes about how much basic theology any given congregation actually knows. There are some pretty ignorant Christians out there - even Reformed Christians - even though many have sat under verse-by-verse preaching for many years.
Spurgeon, of course, comes to mind. Taking a text instead of going through a book. You can get a lot of good theology from his sermons, plus you can find at least one sermon from almost every book of the Bible (and he's usually careful to give you the context of the verse he's taking before he launches out). How many guys who spend three years grinding through Galatians will be able to say that at the end of their ministries?
I once heard John MacArthur preach a theological sermon. Each point he made was bathed in Scripture, but the sermon was about a specific point of theology. I think we need more of that - a lot more of that.
Robert, I know you are a Presbyterian; but are you talking about the type of preaching associated with Heidelberg Catechism preaching?
I thought a good Puritan man would put Martyn Lloyd-Jones "Preaching and Preachers" ahead of Keller.Tim Keller (yes, his book on preaching is actually quite good),
Probably one of these contains the thought:I cannot find the reference at the moment, but I have in my notes a Puritan model of preaching that was both expositional and theological. I believe it followed the pattern of text, context, doctrine, application ... so that in each exposition the doctrinal points are intentionally lifted out of that day's passage, not taken for granted. And the application then winds up always as applied theology, rather than using the narrative solely as model for daily life. I want to say Packer wrote an article on it ... someone here may know what I'm thinking of.
If one wants to be "encouraged" to preach better, then Lloyd-Jones is a good encouragement. But I wouldn't use it as a manual.
You aren't going to find anything better out there besides Perkins, VanMastricht, and Vinet. Most of the other works written on Homiletics all look to these 3.
I actually think we need less verse-by-verse exposition and more theological preaching. I worry sometimes about how much basic theology any given congregation actually knows. There are some pretty ignorant Christians out there - even Reformed Christians - even though many have sat under verse-by-verse preaching for many years.
Spurgeon, of course, comes to mind. Taking a text instead of going through a book. You can get a lot of good theology from his sermons, plus you can find at least one sermon from almost every book of the Bible (and he's usually careful to give you the context of the verse he's taking before he launches out). How many guys who spend three years grinding through Galatians will be able to say that at the end of their ministries?
I once heard John MacArthur preach a theological sermon. Each point he made was bathed in Scripture, but the sermon was about a specific point of theology. I think we need more of that - a lot more of that.
Agreed. A great man used mightily by Our Lord. But, frankly, he did not expound the texts precisely in a consistent manner. Perkins is sublime. Dabney is awfully good, as well. But Perkins is the fons et origo of solidly Reformed preaching instruction.