Thread: Redemptive Historical Preaching Method ONLY

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.

You should purchase the forthcoming CPJ.

Originally Posted by Romans922

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.

Is there anyone who believe in it exclusively?

I believe so, since it has been discussed before.

I would say that I hold to a Redemptive-Historical approach, but I'm not sure that I recognize your definition. Now, I'm not contradicting the possibility or actuality of people out there who are doing what you say, but that's not how the concept was explained to me.

My experience is mostly with Chappell's Christ-Centered Preaching and Johnson's Him We Proclaim, with some familiarity with the works of Greidanus, Clowney, and Goldsworthy. All of them seem to me to fit the notion of a "redemptive-historical" orientation to Scripture. As I understand, RH preaching is expository preaching that attempts to take as much account of the canonical context of a passage as it does of the narrow context. So, regarding a narrative passage, I think RH preachers would place relatively less emphasis on what the person is doing (good or bad) and more on what God was accomplishing through all the events that unfolded. This actually allows for more kinds of application than just considering the specific actions of the main characters. The best theoretical explanation of how to preach this way (that I know of) is Johnson's book.

Now, if you're not interested in this kind of preaching, maybe you could rephrase your question something like this: "I am only interested in the branch of RH preaching that 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." That way you will avoid labeling people improperly.

I resonate with a lot of what Charlie is saying. I certainly don't recognize the kind of R-H preaching you are describing, Andrew, in the best representatives of the genre. It is redemptive-historical to recognize that "these things were written down for our example" (1 Cor. 10:6). I think that RH preaching is not about ignoring the "moral lessons" we can glean from the text, but rather to filter those applications through the lens of Christ first, which filtering process may drastically alter the kind of application drawn from the text. I would phrase it maybe a tad different than Charlie does, in that I think the net application you wind up with could be either more general or more specific, after the Christological filter has been applied, just as it could be more related to the individual characters or less related.

Fair enough on the definition. I'm referring to those RHP who have a major problem with specifically applying the text to the hearer, who would rather just go to Christ and preach Christ, without preaching application or preaching the imperative. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Romans922

Fair enough on the definition. I'm referring to those RHP who have a major problem with specifically applying the text to the hearer, who would rather just go to Christ and preach Christ, without preaching application or preaching the imperative. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. However, I wouldn't even call that preaching, and neither would Phil Ryken, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Dennis Johnson, Ed Clowney, or a host of other RH luminaries.

Andrew has not gone off the reservation with his OP. I know of, and have sat under, the preaching of several Reformed and Presbyterian ministers who both a) refuse to preach OT narratives in an "exemplary" manner, describing that as sheer moralism, and who also b) refused to include any application in their sermons for fear of "transgressing the work of the Holy Spirit".

It is preaching that leads to antinomianism and arrogance among many in the congregation, because they are never being challenged by the Scriptures, never learning how to apply doctrine to life, and who never hear anything at the close of a sermon but the ubiquitous call to "look to Jesus".

The best RH preachers, as Lane pointed out, include both a Christocentric model of preaching as well as application from that. Unfortunately, there are more styles (aberrations?) of RH preaching than what you would get from men such as Clowney, Johnson, et al.

I would agree with everyone else voicing their opinion here. I started one of the RH threads not too long ago and have been called out by more than one person here at RTS for my stance. I think the biggest problem here in the south with those who take a stand against RH is they flat misunderstand it. There is a small, vocal band of RHers that get pointed to as what RH is when they are really a divergent/extreme group. I would love for more people to understand true RH preaching and find that it does NOT ignore application and if preached properly is true, Christ-centered preaching at its finest.

If I understand him correctly, Chapell, who is considered RH, would argue that a sermon without application is not a sermon at all. This would fly in the face of the definition of RH in the OP. However, no doubt there are all kinds of different preachers out there...

Originally Posted by Joshua

You should purchase the forthcoming CPJ.

Yes; CPJ 5 has article on this subject; subscribe now! We should be going to press in September some time as things look right now for an October release. Subscriptions/Store | The Confessional Presbyterian
An Answer to the Challenge of Preaching the Old Testament: An Historical and Theological Examination of the Redemptive-Historical Approach by Rev. Anthony T. Selvaggio, J.D., M. Div.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by Romans922

Fair enough on the definition. I'm referring to those RHP who have a major problem with specifically applying the text to the hearer, who would rather just go to Christ and preach Christ, without preaching application or preaching the imperative. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. However, I wouldn't even call that preaching, and neither would Phil Ryken, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Dennis Johnson, Ed Clowney, or a host of other RH luminaries.

A distinction between Historical Redemptive and Christo-Centric should be made. They are two different methods.

We don't go to the historical accounts of the O.T. books to teach application or refer to the O.T. saints to preach in the imperative. The historical accounts in the O.T. all point to the coming messiah and His future work of redemption.

We glean application through the ministerial work of Christ (or His active obedience, the fulfillment of loving the Lord with all of His heart and loving His neighbor) during His life on earth.

And then the "therefore"! We preach in the imperative to live a life as did Christ, out of gratitude.

The Law is given, then the Gospel is proclaimed, then the "therefore", move to the imperative and exhort the congregation.

That is the pattern of all of Paul's letters. Guilt, Grace then Gratitude. That should be the pattern of the liturgy and the sermon.

Historical Redemptive preaching should also follow this pattern. How all of Israel has failed, including the O.T. hero's of the faith. How Christ has redeemed us, and then the therefore, how we now as Christians live a live out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us.

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Originally Posted by Romans922

Fair enough on the definition. I'm referring to those RHP who have a major problem with specifically applying the text to the hearer, who would rather just go to Christ and preach Christ, without preaching application or preaching the imperative. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense. However, I wouldn't even call that preaching, and neither would Phil Ryken, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Dennis Johnson, Ed Clowney, or a host of other RH luminaries.

A distinction between Historical Redemptive and Christo-Centric should be made. They are two different methods.

We don't go to the historical accounts of the O.T. books to teach application or refer to the O.T. saints to preach in the imperative. The historical accounts in the O.T. all point to the coming messiah and His future work of redemption.

We glean application through the ministerial work of Christ (or His active obedience, the fulfillment of loving the Lord with all of His heart and loving His neighbor) during His life on earth.

And then the "therefore"! We preach in the imperative to live a life as did Christ, out of gratitude.

The Law is given, then the Gospel is proclaimed, then the "therefore", move to the imperative and exhort the congregation.

That is the pattern of all of Paul's letters. Guilt, Grace then Gratitude. That should be the pattern of the liturgy and the sermon.

Historical Redemptive preaching should also follow this pattern. How all of Israel has failed, including the O.T. hero's of the faith. How Christ has redeemed us, and then the therefore, how we now as Christians live a live out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us.

What do you mean by 'we'? Are you speaking for the RH side or the Christ-Centered side?

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Yes, that makes sense. However, I wouldn't even call that preaching, and neither would Phil Ryken, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Sinclair Ferguson, Dennis Johnson, Ed Clowney, or a host of other RH luminaries.

A distinction between Historical Redemptive and Christo-Centric should be made. They are two different methods.

We don't go to the historical accounts of the O.T. books to teach application or refer to the O.T. saints to preach in the imperative. The historical accounts in the O.T. all point to the coming messiah and His future work of redemption.

We glean application through the ministerial work of Christ (or His active obedience, the fulfillment of loving the Lord with all of His heart and loving His neighbor) during His life on earth.

And then the "therefore"! We preach in the imperative to live a life as did Christ, out of gratitude.

The Law is given, then the Gospel is proclaimed, then the "therefore", move to the imperative and exhort the congregation.

That is the pattern of all of Paul's letters. Guilt, Grace then Gratitude. That should be the pattern of the liturgy and the sermon.

Historical Redemptive preaching should also follow this pattern. How all of Israel has failed, including the O.T. hero's of the faith. How Christ has redeemed us, and then the therefore, how we now as Christians live a live out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us.

What do you mean by 'we'? Are you speaking for the RH side or the Christ-Centered side?

The RH side.

Rogerant,

If what you are proposing there is your view of RH preaching, THIS IS WHAT I'M Talking about.

Doing the following: "We don't go to the historical accounts of the O.T. books to teach application or refer to the O.T. saints to preach in the imperative." THIS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE. RIGHT THERE.

Now can someone who has this view, please give me Scriptural Warrant for this position?

I will support my method tomorrow when I am not at work.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Andrew has not gone off the reservation with his OP. I know of, and have sat under, the preaching of several Reformed and Presbyterian ministers who both a) refuse to preach OT narratives in an "exemplary" manner, describing that as sheer moralism, and who also b) refused to include any application in their sermons for fear of "transgressing the work of the Holy Spirit".

It is preaching that leads to antinomianism and arrogance among many in the congregation, because they are never being challenged by the Scriptures, never learning how to apply doctrine to life, and who never hear anything at the close of a sermon but the ubiquitous call to "look to Jesus".

The best RH preachers, as Lane pointed out, include both a Christocentric model of preaching as well as application from that. Unfortunately, there are more styles (aberrations?) of RH preaching than what you would get from men such as Clowney, Johnson, et al.

This was a big issue in the SoCal of the OPC in the 2000-2002 timeframe with Lee Irons representing probably the most strident version of those who take significant exceptions to WCF XIX and associated standards concerning the Law.

Ironically, I've been listening to some Frame lectures where he mentions, in passing, that there are BT advocates who don't believe we should go to any Biblical characters for their moral examples. I think a balanced RH advocate would probably note that we can look to some of these characters but eschew primarily those uses of the characters where only David's specific actions are singled out to imitate outside of any context of faith in the Promise, etc.

That said, years ago I had a minister over at my house who was lamenting some who insist that the only way to approach the Scriptures is to preach what Christ has done and never to give any application. I don't hear that much here, though I know of those who preach and advocate such. I don't find any warrant in Scripture for that. I consider myself Redemptive-Historical in the sense that Christ and His work are seen in shadows or their fulfillment throughout the Word but those indicatives always are the basis for imperatives that form the corpus for our spiritual development and obedience on the basis of what God has done. Even the Decalogue opens with an indicative.

What was the primary method of preaching before RH style of preaching as it is known today?

For example, what style of preaching did the Reformers and Puritans preached?

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

What was the primary method of preaching before RH style of preaching as it is known today?

For example, what style of preaching did the Reformers and Puritans preached?

Applicatory/Experimental Calvinism preaching.

You can read about it in books such as:

Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric
Preaching With Purpose
Truth Applied
Preaching With Spiritual Vigour
Preaching Pure and Simple
The Art of Prophesying
The Relevance of Preaching
An Earnest Ministry: The Want of the Times

Who came up with RH preaching as it is known today?

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

Originally Posted by Romans922

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

I have looked at the state of the Dutch church and find nothing wrong with it, that is if you look at the URCNA. The CRC certainly is in a mess, my wife and I left there a year and a half ago, but that has nothing to do with RH preaching, that has long since passed away in that denomination. What passes for preaching today is nothing more than moralistic pablum. The real nail in the CRC coffin was the departure of all the faithful, conservatives to the URCNA.

Originally Posted by Bookmeister

Originally Posted by Romans922

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

I have looked at the state of the Dutch church and find nothing wrong with it, that is if you look at the URCNA. The CRC certainly is in a mess, my wife and I left there a year and a half ago, but that has nothing to do with RH preaching, that has long since passed away in that denomination. What passes for preaching today is nothing more than moralistic pablum. The real nail in the CRC coffin was the departure of all the faithful, conservatives to the URCNA.

We have differing views on the Dutch church.

I'm against moralistic preaching and only Redemptive Historical Preaching, shouldn't we preach application of every text?

Are we not puritans here?

Originally Posted by Romans922

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

This is just an ignorant statement. If you want to grind an axe you'd better make sure you've sharpened it first.

First of all, the decline in the Hervormde Kerk (now PKN) far, far pre-dates any developments in the redemptive-historical school of preaching in the Netherlands.

Secondly, I could just as easily say, "Look at the state of the Scottish Presbyterian or American Presbyterian church today" and say it is all the result of experimental preaching. Is the Church of Scotland or the PCUSA any different than the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland (PKN)? It goes to show that the theological and spiritual decline was about other factors.

Don't mistake me for some hyper-BT/RH preacher in saying this. Although I was trained by Clowney and Bergsma at WSC, I seek to follow the method of Perkins (the "plain style" of preaching with doctrines and uses) who also wants to clearly lay before people Jesus Christ from every text of Scripture so that they will repent and believe.

Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Originally Posted by Romans922

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

This is just an ignorant statement. If you want to grind an axe you'd better make sure you've sharpened it first.

First of all, the decline in the Hervormde Kerk (now PKN) far, far pre-dates any developments in the redemptive-historical school of preaching in the Netherlands.

Secondly, I could just as easily say, "Look at the state of the Scottish Presbyterian or American Presbyterian church today" and say it is all the result of experimental preaching. Is the Church of Scotland or the PCUSA any different than the Protestantse Kerk in Nederland (PKN)? It goes to show that the theological and spiritual decline was about other factors.

Don't mistake me for some hyper-BT/RH preacher in saying this. Although I was trained by Clowney and Bergsma at WSC, I seek to follow the method of Perkins (the "plain style" of preaching with doctrines and uses) who also wants to clearly lay before people Jesus Christ from every text of Scripture so that they will repent and believe.

Yes it was an ignorant statement of which I apologize.

But in fun, you couldn't combine the two thoughts 'experiental preaching' and the downfall of Presbyterianism because Scottish Presbyterianism and American Presbyterianism (especially American) today do not have as their 'method' experimental preaching. Most today are "moralistic preaching" and "Redemptive-Historical". This is just saying, I know this is not your point. I agree with Perkins But at the same time it doesn't mean you don't tell people how to live (in Christ).

Originally Posted by Romans922

Originally Posted by Bookmeister

Originally Posted by Romans922

The Dutch I believe. I'd invite you to look at the state of their church now...

I have looked at the state of the Dutch church and find nothing wrong with it, that is if you look at the URCNA. The CRC certainly is in a mess, my wife and I left there a year and a half ago, but that has nothing to do with RH preaching, that has long since passed away in that denomination. What passes for preaching today is nothing more than moralistic pablum. The real nail in the CRC coffin was the departure of all the faithful, conservatives to the URCNA.

We have differing views on the Dutch church.

I'm against moralistic preaching and only Redemptive Historical Preaching, shouldn't we preach application of every text?

YES! You seem to be focusing on a narrow, very narrow, view of some RH preachers that deny application. The vast majority of RH preachers do not deny application.

I'm referring to the post above: Redemptive Historical Preaching Method ONLY

I understand that, I do believe in the Redemptive Historical method only, I am trying to point out that RH by nature does not exclude application.

I'm a little confused. Is hyper-BT preaching simply Redemptive Historical preaching without the application? Or is RH in its pure form not supposed to have application?

My impression is that the RH method is a good thing as it points us to Christ. I also don't understand how a sermon can even be a sermon without any application. How can the Holy Spirit work if the pastor does not challenge the hearts of believers?

2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season;(D) reprove, rebuke, and(E) exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

Josh,

You have touched on a key passage for this subject, and one regarding which I have yet to hear an advocate of non-applicatory RH preaching explain with any coherence.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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!

Originally Posted by 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?

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 worshiping 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.

Originally Posted by Rogerant

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 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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-----

Originally Posted by TaylorWest

Originally Posted by Rogerant

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

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Bookmeister

Originally Posted by 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?

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.