Redemptive Historical Preaching Method ONLY

[The Mexican Puritan]

If I understand rightly, RH preaching is now common at WTS, which is one of the many reasons why a prominent OPC pastor, himself a graduate of WTS, told me he no longer recommends this seminary to anyone. Isn't the Reformed pastor supposed to stick to expository preaching?

 

[Dearly Bought]

If I understand rightly, RH preaching is now common at WTS, which is one of the many reasons why a prominent OPC pastor, himself a graduate of WTS, told me he no longer recommends this seminary to anyone. Isn't the Reformed pastor supposed to stick to expository preaching?

I'm pretty sure almost any Reformed minister who in some form favors the Redemptive Historical school of preaching would strongly affirm that he preaches expository sermons.

As others have already mentioned, it is incredibly problematic to talk about RH preaching as though there is some monolithic viewpoint or method shared between all who claim to preach in this manner. I cannot speak to the current homiletics curriculum at WTS, but I would be careful about such broad characterizations. If there is a valid critique of some RH preachers, let's stick to specifics and the actual issues with their methods.

I personally have benefited a great deal from the writings of several RH advocates, but would also readily take issue with any practice of preaching which neglects application of the Scriptures to the church and the believer. Reprove, rebuke, and exhort indeed!

 

[Rogerant]

If I understand rightly, RH preaching is now common at WTS, which is one of the many reasons why a prominent OPC pastor, himself a graduate of WTS, told me he no longer recommends this seminary to anyone. Isn't the Reformed pastor supposed to stick to expository preaching?

If you reject RH preaching completely and only utilize historical grammatical exegesis, the Gospel of John is going to read like a bunch of gobbledygook!

Take John chapter 4. In Jesus discussion with the Samaritan woman all of this responses to her literal questions are in the historical redemptive context. She was talking about literal water, He is talking about spiritual or "living" water. She is talking about a literal husband, He is talking about a spiritual husband.

Example:

Jesus is talking about two different places or churches of worship. In 2 Kings 17:24 we read that at the time of the Assyrian dispersion that when God sacked the kingdom of Israel He removed all of the Israelites (except for the tribe of Judah, verse 18) and dispersed them all over the world. In their place the Assyrians brought people from "5" foreign lands and settled them into the towns of Samaria. And when they first lived there, they did not worship the Lord. So the Lord sent "lions" among them and they killed some of the people. So the king of Assyria gave the order that they appoint one of the priests of the Jews be sent to Samaria to teach the new people what the god "of the land" requires" so that the killings would stop. Now this priest taught them the religion and the "rituals" of Judaism.

These new multicultural Samaritans then mixed the "rituals" of Judaism with the pagan beliefs of the "5" nations that were placed in the land. In other words they married the pure religion and worship of God with 5 "husbands"! They married Judaism with the gods of Babylon, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim. This new marriage produced a religion of works righteousnessor justification with the rituals or liturgy of Judaism. Very much like the Roman Catholic church in our time. Israel had committed and played the harlot with these 5 husbands.

Now in Deuteronomy the Jews were instructed that they were only to worship in the place that God designated for them to worship. That was the temple on the mountain in Jerusalem. These Samaritans worshiped their "husbands" on mount Gerezim. And even though they had 5 husbands, they did not have the real Husband. The only real Husband they were appointed to have was sitting on the well with the woman from Sychar!

Now this woman should have been concerned. The Israelites that were living in Samaria were supposed to be worshipping with their bridegroom in Jerusalem. She should have been concerned with being consumed or eaten by lions. But here, the real "Lion of Judah" is sitting at the well, sharing the Gospel to one of His sheep.

And then, at this "well", this woman suddenly "sees" the well of living water sitting in front of her as Jesus reveals Himself as the messiah. As Hagar, who is confronted with our Savior, "The Angel of the Lord" by a spring of water (Gen 16:7-13), the woman at Sycars well exclaims as Hagar did, "you are the the God who sees me"! And then in Genesis 21:19, "Then God opened her eyes and she saw the well of water". The woman then leaves her empty stone pot at the well and runs to tell the story. She no longer needs to draw literal water from the well, for she has just consumed living water provided by "the God who sees me".

This story, exegeted in the historical redemptive context, reveals the true expository of what is taking place in John 4. It uses the analogy of faith. Interpreting the text as the intent implies.

We as humans tend to interpret the text literally like the woman does. All of her questions are literal. All of our Lords answers are historical redemptive or symbolical.

 

[TaylorWest]

Application?

If you reject RH preaching completely and only utilize historical grammatical exegesis, the Gospel of John is going to read like a bunch of gobbledygook!

Take John chapter 4. In Jesus discussion with the Samaritan woman all of this responses to her literal questions are in the historical redemptive context. She was talking about literal water, He is talking about spiritual or "living" water. She is talking about a literal husband, He is talking about a spiritual husband.

So how would you apply this?

 

[Rogerant]

I don't apply, it God does. God applies it by proclaiming what He has done in redemption. Historical Redemptive preaching IS preaching the Gospel. It is a proclamation about what God has done for us. Not what we are doing for Him.

 

[TaylorWest]

It has been suggested that the epistle to the Hebrews is an apostolic sermon, which seems like an accurate assessment to me. I take it be a good model for how we are to handle and preach the word.

When we look at chapter 11, we find a broad sampling of all the O.T. characters. The preacher highlights what was exemplary from their lives, namely their trust in the Lord.

Then, when we look at chapter 12, we find the application:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

It seems you are saying that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has mishandled those O.T. narratives by lifting them up as examples of godly lives and then exhorting his readers to do likewise.

It seems Romans922's initial question remains: Where is the scriptural warrant for neglecting application?

 

[carlgobelman]

It has been suggested that the epistle to the Hebrews is an apostolic sermon, which seems like an accurate assessment to me. I take it be a good model for how we are to handle and preach the word.

When we look at chapter 11, we find a broad sampling of all the O.T. characters. The preacher highlights what was exemplary from their lives, namely their trust in the Lord.

Then, when we look at chapter 12, we find the application:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

It seems you are saying that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has mishandled those O.T. narratives by lifting them up as examples of godly lives and then exhorting his readers to do likewise.

It seems Romans922's initial question remains: Where is the scriptural warrant for neglecting application?

Regarding Hebrews 11: What is being commended? The lives of OT saints, or the faith of OT saints? What about the life of Samson (for example) is to be commended for us to follow? We are to follow their example of faith, right?

-----Added 9/25/2009 at 01:24:06 EST-----

If you reject RH preaching completely and only utilize historical grammatical exegesis, the Gospel of John is going to read like a bunch of gobbledygook!

Take John chapter 4. In Jesus discussion with the Samaritan woman all of this responses to her literal questions are in the historical redemptive context. She was talking about literal water, He is talking about spiritual or "living" water. She is talking about a literal husband, He is talking about a spiritual husband.

So how would you apply this?

I think the thing to realize is that not all Biblical passages are equally applicable. The gospels are primarily narrative, right? We should be very careful in trying to extract normative principles from narrative sections of Scripture.

I my previous church experience, most pastors would take John 4 and preach a sermon that usually revolves around how we need to worship in "spirit and in truth." This method of going from interpretation straight to application misses the filter of Christ. I believe Rogerant's point is well taken. If pastors are faithful to simply preach the text, more often than not the application takes care of itself.

Besides, why this emphasis on trying to force application as if there is some "one size fits all" application for a given text? I thought one of the principles of hermeneutics was each text has one correct interpretation and many (some better than others) applications.

Again, from my own anecdotal experience, much of the 'practical application' I received from pastors was more eisegetical than exegetical (i.e., the given text was chosen because it fit with the topic that was being preached).

Just my

 

[Bookmeister]

It has been suggested that the epistle to the Hebrews is an apostolic sermon, which seems like an accurate assessment to me. I take it be a good model for how we are to handle and preach the word.

When we look at chapter 11, we find a broad sampling of all the O.T. characters. The preacher highlights what was exemplary from their lives, namely their trust in the Lord.

Then, when we look at chapter 12, we find the application:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

It seems you are saying that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has mishandled those O.T. narratives by lifting them up as examples of godly lives and then exhorting his readers to do likewise.

It seems Romans922's initial question remains: Where is the scriptural warrant for neglecting application?

You are missing the application entirely. The author is not holding up the lives of the OT saints as examples, He says "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of out faith." The application is look to Jesus, not look to the OT saints.

 

[Rogerant]

It has been suggested that the epistle to the Hebrews is an apostolic sermon, which seems like an accurate assessment to me. I take it be a good model for how we are to handle and preach the word.

When we look at chapter 11, we find a broad sampling of all the O.T. characters. The preacher highlights what was exemplary from their lives, namely their trust in the Lord.

Then, when we look at chapter 12, we find the application:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

It seems you are saying that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews has mishandled those O.T. narratives by lifting them up as examples of godly lives and then exhorting his readers to do likewise.

It seems Romans922's initial question remains: Where is the scriptural warrant for neglecting application?

You are missing the application entirely. The author is not holding up the lives of the OT saints as examples, He says "looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of out faith." The application is look to Jesus, not look to the OT saints.

Bookmeister is correct. They were commended for their "faith", looking to Jesus. They were not commended for their works.

John 4 is "Gospel". Trying to find "law" or "application" in the text is forcing "law" into a passage that proclaims Gospel is like trying to mix water with oil. We are not to mix law with Gospel. It always robs God of the Glory and His story of Redemption.

When looking for application or "law", we should go back to the 10 commandments and all of their passive and active demands. That is why in Reformed liturgy we always start with the declaration of the law.

When we read of the accounts of the O.T. saints, it should be read descriptively not prescriptively. As carlgobelman correctly points out, the deeds of Samson are not to be taken as laws to emulate. Also we are not to "test" God as Jacob and Gideon did. We are to go to Christ alone as the One who's work we emulate. Even Moses, at the end of his journey through the wilderness was unrepentant, attributing his sin of striking the rock to the Israelites. Are we to emulate that?

If we believe that the Spirit lead the O.T. saints in their lives as He leads us, how are we to distinguish the works of the O.T. saints as being according to the flesh or according to the Spirit? We are not to glorify the saints by any of their works and they would be ashamed if we did. They attributed everything to Christ. And so should we.

 

[TaylorWest]

I see chapter 12 working in two ways: first there is an application by way of an inference, "therefore, since [because] we have such a crowd of witnesses [which I take to be all those just mentioned in chapter 11], let us [live like them].

Then, we are told how we can actually live faithfully like this crowd of witness, by way of an adverbial participle, namely, by "looking to Jesus."

So, I basically, the application from the O.T. charters is to live like them. The gospel way of doing this is to look to Jesus, who has made our faith so much more perfect than those faithful men and women of old.

I'm not sure how you could take the adverbial participle as a ground, but I guess it is possible. In any case, I think you'd have a pretty difficult time arguing for it, given the follow of the author's argument.

 

[Bookmeister]

I see chapter 12 working in two ways: first there is an application by way of an inference, "therefore, since [because] we have such a crowd of witnesses [which I take to be all those just mentioned in chapter 11], let us [live like them].

Then, we are told how we can actually live faithfully like this crowd of witness, by way of an adverbial participle, namely, by "looking to Jesus."

So, I basically, the application from the O.T. charters is to live like them. The gospel way of doing this is to look to Jesus, who has made our faith so much more perfect than those faithful men and women of old.

I'm not sure how you could take the adverbial participle as a ground, but I guess it is possible. In any case, I think you'd have a pretty difficult time arguing for it, given the follow of the author's argument.

I understand you wanting to look at this the way that makes you feel best, "[live like them]" but the text does not say that.

 

[TaylorWest]

Alan,

If anything, my truncating the early part of chapter 12 to "live like them" is less potent than what the text says and not more so. In fact, we are held to a much greater standard. If those, who lived in an area before the complete revelation of the purpose and work of Christ, who lived in an area before the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit, if they were able to accomplish so much by faith, we all the more.

Which, by the way, makes the most sense of the word "also." Since they did it, we "also" must do these things or, since they did their part, we also must do our part. Therefore, "let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us."

 

[Romans922]

I don't apply, it God does. God applies it by proclaiming what He has done in redemption. Historical Redemptive preaching IS preaching the Gospel. It is a proclamation about what God has done for us. Not what we are doing for Him.

What if you are preaching through the book of Ephesians? How would you preach Ephesians 4:25???? How do you preach that?

Therefore laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you...

Are you going to preach about the Gospel only there? Because you've already done that in the first 3 chapters, not saying you don't mention the Gospel or what God has done, but chapter 4-6 are all about what YOU are supposed to do. So are you going to say, "well there is the verse, God will apply it to you. That's the end of my sermon..." Are you not going to preach to the congregation about the ways in which they and you speak falsely? That's application. That the people before you are gossips and slanderers, they speak in ways which disguise the truth so they themselves will look better because of their pride.

To say 'Let God apply it to them' would be discounting the office that a minister has been given. It seems by what you are saying that a minister can speak nothing, when he is preaching, but the Word of God. But that wouldn't be preaching, that would be reading Scripture.

And before I ramble on, I will stop myself...

 

[carlgobelman]

I don't apply, it God does. God applies it by proclaiming what He has done in redemption. Historical Redemptive preaching IS preaching the Gospel. It is a proclamation about what God has done for us. Not what we are doing for Him.

What if you are preaching through the book of Ephesians? How would you preach Ephesians 4:25???? How do you preach that?

Therefore laying aside falsehood, speak truth each one of you...

Are you going to preach about the Gospel only there? Because you've already done that in the first 3 chapters, not saying you don't mention the Gospel or what God has done, but chapter 4-6 are all about what YOU are supposed to do. So are you going to say, "well there is the verse, God will apply it to you. That's the end of my sermon..." Are you not going to preach to the congregation about the ways in which they and you speak falsely? That's application. That the people before you are gossips and slanderers, they speak in ways which disguise the truth so they themselves will look better because of their pride.

To say 'Let God apply it to them' would be discounting the office that a minister has been given. It seems by what you are saying that a minister can speak nothing, when he is preaching, but the Word of God. But that wouldn't be preaching, that would be reading Scripture.

And before I ramble on, I will stop myself...

I think you're being unfair in your critique of Rogerant (not that I am presuming to defend him). You are assuming his answer before he's had a chance to give it. I think the point people are trying to make here is that the text will indicate how one is to drive application. The paraenetic sections of Scripture are, for the most part, self-explanatory. How would you deal with Eph. 4:25? How much exhortation is needed to apply this verse? I don't think we want to fall into the trap of some contemporary methods of preaching which insists that the preacher give everybody the three steps to live out Eph. 4:25 in our lives this week; that's just preaching straight law, isn't it (I could be wrong)?

Personally, speaking I grow tired of preaching that simply gives me "three action items for this" and "five steps for that." I know Eph. 4:25 exhorts me to speak truthfully. What I need to hear that Christ forgives me when I don't speak truthfully as I ought; that his grace covers my failures.

 

[Rogerant]

If you believe in a Redemptive-Historical ONLY method of preaching, what biblical basis would you give to support your view.

Definition: Redemptive-Historical Preaching believes that in preaching it is not valid for the preacher to utilize the characters or the events of the Bible as examples or models for believers today.

Your opening thread asked if we believed in a Redemptive Historical ONLY method of preaching in regards to the "characters" or the "events" as examples or models for believers today. You did not ask us how we preach from the "Epistles".

In Pauls epistles he starts in the indicative mood regarding justification, predestination etc. Then he expresses the "therefore" and shifts into the imperative mood. Paul utilizes the Reformed method of guilt, grace and then gratitude in his epistles. The proclamation of Law, (and how we have fallen short), the proclamation of the Gospel (what Christ has done for us) and then gratitude (what we do in response to His grace).

So then in Pauls epistle to the Ephesians, he deals with predestination and other issues in the indicative mood, then gets to chapter 4 and says; "I therefore beseech you" and shifts into the imperative mood and teaches application. And we do as well. We only preach in the Historical Imperative interpretation in the historical events of the O.T. and the four gospels when it is speaking in the historical redemptive or symbolic context. We interpret the symbolic scriptures symbolically, and we interpret the literal passages literally.

 

[ChariotsofFire]

Is there a page of Scripture where we can't find something for the hearts of man?

 

[D. Paul]

I was just recently introduced to Henry Krabbendam. This is the first message I heard by him:
SermonAudio.com - Greenville Seminary & Mt. Olive
which spells out the position quite nicely.

 

[Blue Tick]

Is there a page of Scripture where we can't find something for the hearts of man?

Exactly.

James 1:22-24

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

 

[Rogerant]

I was just recently introduced to Henry Krabbendam. This is the first message I heard by him:
SermonAudio.com - Greenville Seminary & Mt. Olive
which spells out the position quite nicely.

Sorry but I listened to your sermon. Mr. Krabbendam provides a straw horse argument for the historical redemptive method of exegesis. It is based upon sermons that he heard from his uncle back in the Netherlands. I would have hoped that he would have used some resources from scholarly resources like Clowney, Johnson or Goldsworthy.

He misrepresents our position and uses one simple sermon that poorly exegetes Joshua 4. He confuses HR preaching with allegory. He then teaches that HR preaching does not facilitate application but the sermon on Joshua 4 facilitates application in an allegorical fashion.

He also appears to have a NCT outlook on the use of the law rather than a Covenant Theology position. He indicates that Jesus has enriched or changed the law in the N.T. He sees O.T. covenant and a N.T. covenant rather than Covenant of Works and Covenant of Promise. I consider this to be aberrant teaching and not reformed.

 

[Romans922]

Okay, perhaps I've gone off track. Let me rephrase. Have you ever read Calvin's sermons, right now I'm preaching through 2 Samuel and I have had the privilege of reading some or Calvin's sermons from 2 Samuel. There we have sermons by Calvin, of an Old Testament background. Would you be willing to call Calvin's method of preaching, which is not Redemptive-Historical, but very much having pointed application to the hearer (not just letting God apply it), would you be willing to call Calvin's application of texts to the hearers a wrong method of preaching?

 

[Rogerant]

Okay, perhaps I've gone off track. Let me rephrase. Have you ever read Calvin's sermons, right now I'm preaching through 2 Samuel and I have had the privilege of reading some or Calvin's sermons from 2 Samuel. There we have sermons by Calvin, of an Old Testament background. Would you be willing to call Calvin's method of preaching, which is not Redemptive-Historical, but very much having pointed application to the hearer (not just letting God apply it), would you be willing to call Calvin's application of texts to the hearers a wrong method of preaching?

Can you provide us a link of the sermon. But I want to point out, it is not a cut and dried right or wrong issue.

 

[Romans922]

Your quote seems pretty cut and dry: "I don't apply, it God does. God applies it by proclaiming what He has done in redemption. Historical Redemptive preaching IS preaching the Gospel. It is a proclamation about what God has done for us. Not what we are doing for Him."

I don't know where you could find it online, maybe someone else could give him a good historically applicatory sermon by Calvin.

 

[Romans922]

Calvin states in his sermon on 2 Samuel 7, "This attitude demonstrates what we saw yesturday, that David was like a man humbled before the Lord, that he considered himself to be nothing, and that he only sought to exalt him from whom he held all things. Now here is where we should emulate David. If God gives us rest and prosperity, let us not be so ill advised as to throw caution to the winds and act like wild stallions, giving ourselves license to abuse the liberality which he bestows upon us. Rather, let us realize that more than ever we must commit ourselves to his service, and seriously consider how he can be honoured in purity as he deserves, thus showing that we are not ungrateful for so many benfits that we have received from his hand."

 

[Bookmeister]

Yes, here is where we should, in humbling ourselves before the Lord and praising him, not in "slaying the giants in our lives," or in being a deliverer of the people. We should emulate all who humble themselves before the Lord and praise Him, not just David.