Jump to content
Website Glitch Read more... ×
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Brother Stafford

Preaching Preference

Recommended Posts

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 .

When preaching the Gospel,we should start by telling sinners who God is. When God told Isaiah to preach to Cyrus, long before the latter was born God continually restated who He Is.

Isaiah 44:24  Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; 25  That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;26  That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof: 7  That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:  28  That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
1 ¶  Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2  I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3  And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.
4  For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 ¶  I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6  That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
8  Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.
9  Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

He continues.

11 ¶  Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.
12  I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

18  For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

21  Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

He then tells the world how to be saved,

22  Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

When Peter preached at Pentecost, he said, "You killed the author of life" The Jews knew who God was and most recognised who Jesus was.  

14 ¶  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15  For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16  But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17  And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18  And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19  And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:  20  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

22  Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23  Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24  Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

25  For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26  Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

28  Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

29  Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32  This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33  Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34  For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35  Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

And what was the result of this sermon (Which had no mention of Hell).

37 ¶  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Peter then tells them the way of salvation

38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

The result?

41  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
 

Note the promise in verse 39 includes to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. and that includes us

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,  We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection.

 


 

The passage of Pentecost you quote makes no mention in any way of your conclusion at the bottom "We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection."         yet you attempt to use it as a proof text against condemnation.

In addition you say: When Peter preached at Pentecost, he said, "You killed the author of life" The Jews knew who God was and most recognised who Jesus was.  How could they unless they had already had seeds sown from our Lord's own Sermons in the Gospels.

Those same Jews Peter was preaching to at Pentecost also knew of the Lord's Sermons which mentioned condemnation and hell constantly.  See verse 22 from your post:  "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:" 

If they knew beforehand (IE seeds sown) that they were vile sinners then they had also heard and understood that this vile sinner status carried condemnation along with it. Peter's sermon mentions none of this "vile sinners or condemnation" but it certainly infers both to an audience Peter was 100% sure had heard the sin and condemnation sermons of our Lord.

Your entire post here is moot from the standpoint of attempting to remove hell and condemnation from the Great Commission.

Most born again believers use the term preaching the Gospel (just like the Apostles) with the understanding that they mean the Great Commission and not just the one passage from I Cor 15:1-4. There has to be other seeds sown just as there were obviously with this crowd at Pentecost. They had the background and they were convicted of their sin and their coming judgment: IE, they were afraid...period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wretched said:

The passage of Pentecost you quote makes no mention in any way of your conclusion at the bottom "We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection."         yet you attempt to use it as a proof text against condemnation.

In addition you say: When Peter preached at Pentecost, he said, "You killed the author of life" The Jews knew who God was and most recognised who Jesus was.  How could they unless they had already had seeds sown from our Lord's own Sermons in the Gospels.

Those same Jews Peter was preaching to at Pentecost also knew of the Lord's Sermons which mentioned condemnation and hell constantly.  See verse 22 from your post:  "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:" 

If they knew beforehand (IE seeds sown) that they were vile sinners then they had also heard and understood that this vile sinner status carried condemnation along with it. Peter's sermon mentions none of this "vile sinners or condemnation" but it certainly infers both to an audience Peter was 100% sure had heard the sin and condemnation sermons of our Lord.

Your entire post here is moot from the standpoint of attempting to remove hell and condemnation from the Great Commission.

Most born again believers use the term preaching the Gospel (just like the Apostles) with the understanding that they mean the Great Commission and not just the one passage from I Cor 15:1-4. There has to be other seeds sown just as there were obviously with this crowd at Pentecost. They had the background and they were convicted of their sin and their coming judgment: IE, they were afraid...period.

 

Not sure I follow all your reasoning, it seems a bit muddled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Not sure I follow all your reasoning, it seems a bit muddled.

Your summary at the bottom states:

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,  We should come to Christ because we realise we are vile sinners who have sinned against a just and holy God who sent his only begotten son to take our place and nailed our sins to his tree, and rose from the dead so that we may rise with him at the resurrection.

However, your Scriptural passages do not support this summary unless you are conceding that Peter's sermon at Pentecost could not stand alone without previous seeds sown providing more background (which BTW: Peter's sermon already states that the audience had previous knowledge). In addition you leave out any mention of condemnation for the lost which logically indicates that you do not believe that knowledge is required in order for the lost to believe the Gospel.

I forgot to ask another question which I just bolded in your quote. So are you claiming that if one becomes convicted of sin, righteous and judgment, their faith in the Gospel then somehow becomes works-based?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wretched said:

Your summary at the bottom states:

 

I forgot to ask another question which I just bolded in your quote. So are you claiming that if one becomes convicted of sin, righteous and judgment, their faith in the Gospel then somehow becomes works-based?

That is not what I said.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, (Omega) said:

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!

If you get a concordance and actually look it up, Jesus himself called what he did "preaching". And his preaching was chock full of stories, parables, similes, metaphors and simple illustrations of complex truths for the common man. And he didn't quote reams of Old Testament scripture while doing it. Just sayin'.

 

Mt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
Mt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a monumental difference between Jesus' parables and illustrations than what we find today in most churches; they are full of gibberish and has nothing to do with the truth or spiritual growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (Omega) said:

There is a monumental difference between Jesus' parables and illustrations than what we find today in most churches; they are full of gibberish and has nothing to do with the truth or spiritual growth.

 

 

18 hours ago, (Omega) said:

 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. 

First - I think at the bottom of everything, you and I would probably agree that there are a lot of "preachers" today that are not actually preaching. I guess what is bothering me a little this morning is how you are expressing your dissatisfaction with these fellows, and the broad brush you are painting with. I sincerely doubt that you have been in "most churches" to witness and judge their preaching. And even if you have, Romans 14 is very clear that it is not our job to judge another man's servant. These men are not ours to judge. If he IS a man of God, and we set him at naught because of the weakness of his preaching, we ourselves are in danger of being brought to task by the very one that both the preacher and we ourselves actually answer to.

Second - as I pointed out in the post above, Jesus' own messages consisted predominately of stories. This sticks in the craw of the scholars among us (I can't for the life of me picture Jesus pointing out how many different languages He could read the scripture in), but the watchword for all of Christ's messages (be they "preaching" or "teaching") was simplicity and commonality. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't speak in terms of pusillanimous conduct. As "the right kind" of preachers, we use a lot of scripture and scripture words in our preaching, but those we preach to often do not have the same foundation.

I have preached in the jungle of a 3rd world country to a crowd who were illiterate and unchurched. I had an interpreter who would translate for me, and beside him was another translator who would then translate his translation into a third language. A chicken came in strutting down the aisle, a dog came in chasing the chicken and then a naked baby came chasing the dog. Down the middle of the hut / building and up on the platform and around and around before the whole circus was eventually shooed outside. You learn to put the truth down on the dirt, where the meanest can grasp it. That means lots of stories and illustrations. Parables.

Remember this, and chew on it long and hard. Like it or not, preaching is not the end. It is only the means to an end. The TRUTH is the end. And as a preacher, if you loose sight of the end while focusing on the means and methodology, you eventually loose both the method and the message. I don't know you, Omega. You obviously hold the truth, and you sound really smart and educated. Most people are not scholars, however, and most people don't like being talked down to. Even from the pulpit. Especially from the pulpit.

Bottom line? While we agree that there is "wrong" preaching, there is no one RIGHT way to preach. With over 7 billion people on this planet speaking 7,000 living languages and representing almost as many unique, distinct cultures, don't put the delivery of the message in a box.

As I re-read this, it comes across as a rant, and Im almost hesitant to send it. It's not intended as such, and I have no heart to offend or get in a slug-fest over this. I just wanted to express my heart. Those on here who've known me for the last few years have learned to understand my plainness without taking it personal. I hope you can as well, for I truly dont mean this as harsh as it sounds.

 

Edited by weary warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, weary warrior said:

First - I think at the bottom of everything, you and I would probably agree that there are a lot of "preachers" today that are not actually preaching. I guess what is bothering me a little this morning is how you are expressing your dissatisfaction with these fellows, and the broad brush you are painting with. I sincerely doubt that you have been in "most churches" to witness and judge their preaching. And even if you have, Romans 14 is very clear that it is not our job to judge another man's servant. These men are not ours to judge. If he IS a man of God, and we set him at naught because of the weakness of his preaching, we ourselves are in danger of being brought to task by the very one that both the preacher and we ourselves actually answer to.

Second - as I pointed out in the post above, Jesus' own messages consisted predominately of stories. This sticks in the craw of the scholars among us (I can't for the life of me picture Jesus pointing out how many different languages He could read the scripture in), but the watchword for all of Christ's messages (be they "preaching" or "teaching") was simplicity and commonality. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't speak in terms of pusillanimous conduct. As "the right kind" of preachers, we use a lot of scripture and scripture words in our preaching, but those we preach to often do not have the same foundation.

I have preached in the jungle of a 3rd world country to a crowd who were illiterate and unchurched. I had an interpreter who would translate for me, and beside him was another translator who would then translate his translation into a third language. A chicken came in strutting down the aisle, a dog came in chasing the chicken and then a naked baby came chasing the dog. Down the middle of the hut / building and up on the platform and around and around before the whole circus was eventually shooed outside. You learn to put the truth down on the dirt, where the meanest can grasp it. That means lots of stories and illustrations. Parables.

Remember this, and chew on it long and hard. Like it or not, preaching is not the end. It is only the means to an end. The TRUTH is the end. And as a preacher, if you loose sight of the end while focusing on the means and methodology, you eventually loose both the method and the message. I don't know you, Omega. You obviously hold the truth, and you sound really smart and educated. Most people are not scholars, however, and most people don't like being talked down to. Even from the pulpit. Especially from the pulpit.

Bottom line? While we agree that there is "wrong" preaching, there is no one RIGHT way to preach. With over 7 billion people on this planet speaking 7,000 living languages and representing almost as many unique, distinct cultures, don't put the delivery of the message in a box.

As I re-read this, it comes across as a rant, and Im almost hesitant to send it. It's not intended as such, and I have no heart to offend or get in a slug-fest over this. I just wanted to express my heart. Those on here who've known me for the last few years have learned to understand my plainness without taking it personal. I hope you can as well, for I truly dont mean this as harsh as it sounds.

Brother "Weary Warrior,"

I know that you did not right this to me, but to Brother Daniel.  However, I for one shall choose to take it in the spirit with which it was intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 22 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×