Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Preaching Preference


...

Recommended Posts

  • Members
On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:56 AM, Invicta said:

We once had a pastor who said, "We become Christians because we want to go to heaven." and I have heard some say "We become Christians because we don't want to go to Hell."  Both are false teachings .

This is your opening sentence

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:56 AM, Invicta said:

To return to my opening sentence, I believe that if we try to come to Christ for those two reasons, we are coming for what we can get out of it, and that is a works based salvation,  

This is your return to it.

If the Spirit reproves of sin, righteous and judgment, it will produce a new found need to be spared His wrath in Hell. That "need" manifests itself by the desire to escape Hell and go to Heaven. How could you believe this is works based? 

If that is not what you meant, could you please explain and clarify?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, wretched said:

This is your opening sentence

This is your return to it.

If the Spirit reproves of sin, righteous and judgment, it will produce a new found need to be spared His wrath in Hell. That "need" manifests itself by the desire to escape Hell and go to Heaven. How could you believe this is works based? 

If that is not what you meant, could you please explain and clarify?

Duplicate

 

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, wretched said:

This is your opening sentence

This is your return to it.

If the Spirit reproves of sin, righteous and judgment, it will produce a new found need to be spared His wrath in Hell. That "need" manifests itself by the desire to escape Hell and go to Heaven. How could you believe this is works based? 

If that is not what you meant, could you please explain and clarify?

No that is not what I meant  at all.  If the preacher says "Come to Jesus if you want to go heaven or if you on't want to go to hell," that is not the Holy spirit. I have already explained what I believe the gospel is.  

Just today during a conversation with two or three, I said "It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement."  This was at our seniors lunch after our preacher compared the first coming of Jesus as a baby and his second as judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 minutes ago, Invicta said:

No that is not what I meant  at all.  If the preacher says "Come to Jesus if you want to go heaven or if you on't want to go to hell," that is not the Holy spirit. I have already explained what I believe the gospel is.  

Just today during a conversation with two or three, I said "It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement."  This was at our seniors lunch after our preacher compared the first coming of Jesus as a baby and his second as judge.

Got it, I understand what you mean. I see that this time around I was countering with oranges while you were speaking of apples.

There is a wide gulf of difference in this matter between mental assent and heart belief. As wide a gulf as hell is to Heaven respectively.

Thank you for clarifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Members
On September 4, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Brother Stafford said:

How many of you prefer hard preaching?  Admonishing and fire & brimstone preaching is to what I am referring.

Brother Stafford, I think this is an excellent question & I wish more members would respond. Here are my thoughts:

Since I am already saved, I go to church because we are not to forsake the assembling of saints. IOW, because God says to. I want to obey Him to the very best of my ability, because He is my Father.

i know I cannot be perfect, & that I will be a sinner as long as I am in this sinful suit of flesh (Praise Jesus for His righteousness, by which I am saved), and that I am already sealed unto the day of redemption, being born again from God. Therefore, since I am now a child of God, He treats me as a daughter, and chastens & scourges me as one. 

I am not a glutton for pain & punishment, nor do I want to foster a life of misery by my own hand.. I  WANT to live a  life that is pleasing to God, and not just  sin with reckless abandon. 

That is exactly WHY I believe that hard preaching is vital to the believer!

Simply put, it is essential because it helps you get the sin out of your life. (And sometimes even helps you identify sins you didn't even realize you were committing!). Here in America, the preaching is so watered down & people are so easily offended that you start to wonder if even some of the regulars are saved. 

Maybe I am just thick-skinned, but I want to know where I'm messing up so I can correct it. I couldn't find a church when I first got saved that had a Pastor that wasn't afraid to rip face. And upon examining their fruit I discovered the congregation was ripe with drunkenness, fornication, sodomy, divorce, adultery, gossip, etc. Why? Because the Pastors were too afraid of offending the congregation to preach against it! I guess they were more concerned with having their fancy house & overflowing offering plates & rubbing elbows with politicians than the spiritual health of their congregations.

There was zero accountability in those churches & people's lives were a mess. It got to where I saw no difference between lives of those of the world & the churches. I wanted to go soul winning, see people get saved, see sin being squashed from lives(including my own). I told one Pastor once, "I will TELL you what I'm doing wrong if you'll preach against it!" Not a peep.

Sadly, MOST churches are like this, which is why they are so lame & falling away.

Anyhow, that's my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I use to love and prefer only fire and brimstone preaching... However I think sometimes it's really easy for us to hear fire and brimstone preaching and that it's easy to say amen to. However I think encouragement and admonition is just as important. I also grow tired of preaching who get up and preach about all the sins except for the ones that their people are guilty about. It's really easy to preach against sins like sodomy, and abortion, because hardly anyone in our churches does those... I wish more preachers would preach on modesty and dress (and I mean actually talk about it instead of referring to it in vague generalities), the evils of public school system, worldly carnal entertainment, gossip, bitterness, etc. 

I am all for preaching about hell and telling sinners to repent.. but I just think preachers really need to get down to where their peoples needs are and as God leads them to deliver God's message to them. I am not particularly fond of dry expositions, or shallow messages either.. I guess It is hard to explain..So much preaching is shallow in it's exposition of the scriptures, and so many times I feel like there are topics that should be preached on, and they are avoided or when they are touched on its so shallow as to even have an effect. 

I think what we need today is true spirit filled men, who are sensitive to the heart of God, preaching and proclaiming God's message at God's timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There has to be a balance of both hard preaching and the Love of God. On one hand, we can show how God came down in the flesh to pay the penalty of our sins so we can be saved. And on the other hand, we should also preach the consequences of rejecting the truth of the Word of God. This is how Jesus Himself preached. Jesus spoke on both Heaven and Hell. He explained the love of God towards sinners (Jn.3:16), and the penalty of rejecting the Gospel (Lk.13:28). I also used this method in my ministries when I preach to the Lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

There is "hard preaching" and there is "preaching hard". They are not the same, yet few can tell them apart. Any braying jackass can get loud, and any arrogant, self-righteous pharisee can get mean. To preach the whole truth plain and straight with courage, coupled at the same time with humility and love ... well. That's altogether a different story, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members
On 9/4/2016 at 1:55 PM, Brother Stafford said:

How many of you prefer hard preaching?  Admonishing and fire & brimstone preaching is to what I am referring.

 

On 9/4/2016 at 2:06 PM, Rosie said:

me me me

 

On 9/4/2016 at 2:09 PM, Brother Stafford said:

Soprano or alto?

 

On 9/4/2016 at 2:47 PM, Rosie said:

huh

I'm not exactly sure why, but I found this very funny. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Now we all know who the best preacher of all time was -- and His name is Jesus. I've studied the red letters of the bible to see how Jesus preached and I would pray that the Holy Spirit would help me to better my understanding of the Words of Jesus. There were times when Jesus got indignant for all the right reasons (Matt. 7:4-5; Lk. 13:3; Mk. 9:43-48; 12:30-31) at the religious leaders as He was preaching. Then there were times when He shared the Love of God to the unregenerate (Matt. 5:44; Jn. 3:16; 13:34; 15:13). I would say that Jesus was a "fire and brimstone" preacher because He mentions the word Hell more than He does Heaven. Jesus preached this way because He wanted to warn His listeners of the consequences of sin, and the Eternal punishment that follows after death. Now I'm not saying that this is the only preaching method we should use; only that this was how Jesus preached. If you have a different method of preaching, then that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing it the wrong way. There are many effective ways to preach, and as long as we preach the Salvation message, then glory to you.

God Bless,

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
16 hours ago, (Omega) said:

Now we all know who the best preacher of all time was -- and His name is Jesus. I've studied the red letters of the bible to see how Jesus preached and I would pray that the Holy Spirit would help me to better my understanding of the Words of Jesus. There were times when Jesus got indignant for all the right reasons (Matt. 7:4-5; Lk. 13:3; Mk. 9:43-48; 12:30-31) at the religious leaders as He was preaching. Then there were times when He shared the Love of God to the unregenerate (Matt. 5:44; Jn. 3:16; 13:34; 15:13). I would say that Jesus was a "fire and brimstone" preacher because He mentions the word Hell more than He does Heaven. Jesus preached this way because He wanted to warn His listeners of the consequences of sin, and the Eternal punishment that follows after death. Now I'm not saying that this is the only preaching method we should use; only that this was how Jesus preached. If you have a different method of preaching, then that doesn't necessarily mean you're doing it the wrong way. There are many effective ways to preach, and as long as we preach the Salvation message, then glory to you.

God Bless,

Daniel

Brother Daniel,

It appears that you have classified our Lord Jesus Christ as a "fire and brimstone" preacher because of the CONTENT of His preaching.  Yet most today employ the description of "fire and brimstone" preacher concerning the STYLE of preaching.  Do you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was a "fire and brimstone" preacher in relation to the STYLE that is so commonly classified by that phrase today?  By the way, what would you classify as the opposite type of preacher and preaching from "fire and brimstone"?  Indeed, what would you classify as the listing of various types of preacher and preaching in addition to "fire and brimstone"?

Furthermore, have you ever studied the difference in usage between the teaching/teacher terms in relation our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching/preacher terms in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ?  I believe that you will find that our Lord Jesus Christ was described as a teacher or as one teaching approximately two times as much as He was described as a preacher and as one preaching.  I believe that it is also worthy to notice how many of those preaching/preacher descriptions are used specifically in relation to the proclamation of the gospel message itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Daniel,

It appears that you have classified our Lord Jesus Christ as a "fire and brimstone" preacher because of the CONTENT of His preaching.  Yet most today employ the description of "fire and brimstone" preacher concerning the STYLE of preaching.  Do you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was a "fire and brimstone" preacher in relation to the STYLE that is so commonly classified by that phrase today?  By the way, what would you classify as the opposite type of preacher and preaching from "fire and brimstone"?  Indeed, what would you classify as the listing of various types of preacher and preaching in addition to "fire and brimstone"?

Furthermore, have you ever studied the difference in usage between the teaching/teacher terms in relation our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching/preacher terms in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ?  I believe that you will find that our Lord Jesus Christ was described as a teacher or as one teaching approximately two times as much as He was described as a preacher and as one preaching.  I believe that it is also worthy to notice how many of those preaching/preacher descriptions are used specifically in relation to the proclamation of the gospel message itself.

Sounds interesting 

14 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Daniel,

It appears that you have classified our Lord Jesus Christ as a "fire and brimstone" preacher because of the CONTENT of His preaching.  Yet most today employ the description of "fire and brimstone" preacher concerning the STYLE of preaching.  Do you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was a "fire and brimstone" preacher in relation to the STYLE that is so commonly classified by that phrase today?  By the way, what would you classify as the opposite type of preacher and preaching from "fire and brimstone"?  Indeed, what would you classify as the listing of various types of preacher and preaching in addition to "fire and brimstone"?

Furthermore, have you ever studied the difference in usage between the teaching/teacher terms in relation our Lord Jesus Christ and the preaching/preacher terms in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ?  I believe that you will find that our Lord Jesus Christ was described as a teacher or as one teaching approximately two times as much as He was described as a preacher and as one preaching.  I believe that it is also worthy to notice how many of those preaching/preacher descriptions are used specifically in relation to the proclamation of the gospel message itself.

Sounds interesting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Scott,

It is true that some translations do use the word "preach" for some passages in the Mostly "preach" translates kerusso in the NT, meaning more literally "to proclaim as a a herald" -- a proclamation of the truth which is all about substance.The purpose of the local assembly is to learn the truth from someone who is teaching the truth, and to be encouraged by someone -- and by each other -- through the proclamation of the truth.  In my observation and experience, sermons are long on stories, illustrations, fancy rhetoric . . . and misinformation in terms of biblical truth.  In other words, what passes for "preaching" in the church visible today has nothing to do with the Bible, neither in terms of what is commanded nor in terms of the dissemination of the truth.

Interms of "fire and brimstone", this phrase usually means "scaring unbelievers into being saved by threats of hell".  I think it is very obvious that this was not our Lord's approach. Not that He didn't mention hell and the consequences of unbelief, but always in a context of teaching the entire realm of biblical truth.  I'm not saying that an evangelists shouldn't make the issue of our eternal choice clear to unbelievers -- clearly they should. But what does this have to do with a pastor who is speaking to a congregation of putative believers?  If he is threatening hell for sin, he clearly doesn't understand a thing about the Bible nor the truth.  Q.E.D  

God Bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, (Omega) said:

Brother Scott,

It is true that some translations do use the word "preach" for some passages in the Mostly "preach" translates kerusso in the NT, meaning more literally "to proclaim as a a herald" -- a proclamation of the truth which is all about substance.The purpose of the local assembly is to learn the truth from someone who is teaching the truth, and to be encouraged by someone -- and by each other -- through the proclamation of the truth.  In my observation and experience, sermons are long on stories, illustrations, fancy rhetoric . . . and misinformation in terms of biblical truth.  In other words, what passes for "preaching" in the church visible today has nothing to do with the Bible, neither in terms of what is commanded nor in terms of the dissemination of the truth.

Interms of "fire and brimstone", this phrase usually means "scaring unbelievers into being saved by threats of hell".  I think it is very obvious that this was not our Lord's approach. Not that He didn't mention hell and the consequences of unbelief, but always in a context of teaching the entire realm of biblical truth.  I'm not saying that an evangelists shouldn't make the issue of our eternal choice clear to unbelievers -- clearly they should. But what does this have to do with a pastor who is speaking to a congregation of putative believers?  If he is threatening hell for sin, he clearly doesn't understand a thing about the Bible nor the truth.  Q.E.D  

God Bless!

Brother Daniel,

Thank you for your response. It appears that you and I would agree that our Lord Jesus Christ was not a "fire and brimstone" preacher if that phrase is intended to classify the STYLE that the phrase is so commonly intended to describe today.  I still remain curious, simply for the sake of thought and discussion, how we might classify other styles of preacher.  We often hear about the "fire and brimstone" style of preaching, but we really do not hear a classification for a style that is not a "fire and brimstone" style.  If preaching is NOT a "fire and brimstone" style, what is it instead?

Indeed, I am aware that "preaching" terminology is found in the King James translation as translation for the Greek "kerusso" family of terms.  In addition, "preaching the gospel" terminology is found in the King James translation as translation for the Greek "euangelizo" family of terms.  However, even combining both family of terms, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is described as being a TEACHER and as engaged in TEACHING approximately two times as much as being a preacher and as engaged in preaching.  It is interesting to me that when we want to talk about the responsibility of pastors in "the ministry of the word," we run to the preaching passage of 2 Timothy 4:1-4, but we ignore the apt to teach passage of 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and the apt to teach qualification for the pastor as given in 1 Timothy 3:2. I have not yet done the study, but I wonder what the comparison would be between the responsibility to preach and the responsibility to teach as presented throughout the pastoral epistles.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Daniel,

Thank you for your response. It appears that you and I would agree that our Lord Jesus Christ was not a "fire and brimstone" preacher if that phrase is intended to classify the STYLE that the phrase is so commonly intended to describe today.  I still remain curious, simply for the sake of thought and discussion, how we might classify other styles of preacher.  We often hear about the "fire and brimstone" style of preaching, but we really do not hear a classification for a style that is not a "fire and brimstone" style.  If preaching is NOT a "fire and brimstone" style, what is it instead?

Indeed, I am aware that "preaching" terminology is found in the King James translation as translation for the Greek "kerusso" family of terms.  In addition, "preaching the gospel" terminology is found in the King James translation as translation for the Greek "euangelizo" family of terms.  However, even combining both family of terms, I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is described as being a TEACHER and as engaged in TEACHING approximately two times as much as being a preacher and as engaged in preaching.  It is interesting to me that when we want to talk about the responsibility of pastors in "the ministry of the word," we run to the preaching passage of 2 Timothy 4:1-4, but we ignore the apt to teach passage of 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and the apt to teach qualification for the pastor as given in 1 Timothy 3:2. I have not yet done the study, but I wonder what the comparison would be between the responsibility to preach and the responsibility to teach as presented throughout the pastoral epistles.

Hi Brother Scott,

Thank you for replying back. I just wanted to mention from the outset that I DO believe that Jesus did more TEACHING than PREACHING (Matt.4:23; 5:2;7:28-29; 28:19; 13:37; 4:33; Mk.4:2;34; 6:44; Lk.4:15; 5:3; 8:11; 24:27; Jn.3:2; 7:14;8:2; 2nd Jn.1:9). The issue (and the problem) is the way these words are used in the contemporary church-visible -- not what terms they may correspond to in the Bible. When someone tells me that so and so is going to "preach a sermon", I have a definite expectation because I know what a "sermon" is and also what "preaching" one means.  I expect to be harangued for the better part of an hour with rising tones and rhetoric, bombarded by illustrations and "stories", and, in many cases, manipulated emotionally with heavy doses of guilt designed to get me to 1) "join"; 2) give (maybe even tithe); 3) work (at things this church wants done); and 4) "bring" others along to do 1-3 as well. What I DO NOT expect is to be taught anything about the truth resident in the scriptures.  On the contrary, I expect to be subjected to a lot of half truths and erroneous "guestimations" of what this "preacher" thinks may be the truth based upon his poor preparation, sloppy approach, and questionable motivations: wanting fame, money and power -- or as he would put it, a larger witness, more resources for the ministry and a greater influence in the community "for Christ".        

I have read the gospels MANY times -- in Greek as well as in English.  What Jesus did was teach the truth.  It's OK if one want to call that "preaching", I suppose, but given what "preaching" means in the church-visible today, I think it is insult to attribute that sort of palaver and pusillanimous conduct to our dear Lord.  He wielded the sword of the Spirit, the truth of the Word of God, like no other.  We are supposed to follow His example. But I find the exact opposite happening in the vast majority of churches today.  The only differences between most of them are the ones you note:  differences is style.  If someone is engaged in pornography, the "style" of it hardly matters since it is wrong whatever the "style".  Similarly, if someone is promoting false positions from false motivations and failing entirely in the mandate our Lord has given, the style doesn't matter, nor do the terms with which we may wish to describe what they are doing.  The main thing is to stay away from such nonsense and seek instead a place where you can grow up spiritually through the Word of God so as to be able to mature and stand the test then help others do the same.  Everything else is a distraction at best and an invitation to a downward spiritual spiral at worst. If I skipped some of your questions, it's because I don't have a definitive answer to them. But I have put it on my "to do" list.   

God Bless!

Edited by (Omega)
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...