 » Site Navigation | | | | » Online Users: 104 | | 32 members and 72 guests | | ANT, Augusta, Backwoods Presbyterian, Blue Tick, Brad, Calvin'scuz, Christusregnat, ColdSilverMoon, cwjudyjr, Gesetveemet, Grace Alone, InevitablyReformed, JoelYrick, jogri17, JohnGill, JRemington, jwithnell, mybigGod, Pilgrim72, py3ak, richardnz, Roldan, sastark, skellam, Sonoftheday, Southern Presbyterian, Theoretical, TimV | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
03-19-2008, 10:00 AM
|  | El Tirano | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,127
Thanks: 112
Thanked 524 Times in 328 Posts
| | | A Test Case
There are different models for preaching currently being promoted within the church, including the Reformed segment. So I propose a test case.
Leviticus 12
How would a redemptive-historical preacher preach this? (Think Edmund Clowney)
How would a reformed experiential preacher preach this? (Think Joel Beeke)
How would a practical preacher preach this? (Think Albert Martin)
How would a puritan-style preacher this? (Not sure who to put here)
I know the outline would be:
Text: _________________________________
Doctrine: ______________________________
Uses: _________________________________
But what would you put to fill in the blanks?
How would an expository preacher preach this? (Think Rick Phillips) (Now please, the purpose of the thread isn't to argue about nomenclature or what is better, and I certainly hope that there is overlap among the categories. But if you hold to one or the other of these styles of preaching, or if you think you have a pretty decent handle on them, give me your take: what would each different style of preaching make with this text?) |
03-20-2008, 07:40 PM
| | El Tirano | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,127
Thanks: 112
Thanked 524 Times in 328 Posts
| | | No takers? It doesn't have to be detailed --a very brief outline would be a very suggestive answer. |
03-20-2008, 07:55 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 4,268
Thanks: 488
Thanked 1,656 Times in 665 Posts
| | | On this portion the Puritan preacher would adopt the redemptive-historical significance of the passage, and probably preach on the transmission of original sin and its expiation by Christ. For his text he would take the most pertinent statement, but would be careful to provide the surrounding context and draw relevant points from it. He would be experiential throughout, always careful to apply the subject to the different types of hearers present in his auditory, e.g., sinners, seekers, backsliders, doubters, afflicted, and assured saints. And practical use would be made of each observation, for he is blessed who is a doer and not a hearer only. The next occasion the Puritan has for preaching he might decide to take the next verse as his text, and so would make the chapter an expository feast.
__________________
Yours sincerely, 
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
|
03-20-2008, 08:53 PM
| | El Tirano | | Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 3,127
Thanks: 112
Thanked 524 Times in 328 Posts
| | | Very interesting, thank you. |
03-21-2008, 06:21 AM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,965
Thanks: 473
Thanked 697 Times in 359 Posts
| | | How would a redemptive-historical preacher preach this? (Think Edmund Clowney)
How would a reformed experiential preacher preach this? (Think Joel Beeke)
How would a practical preacher preach this? (Think Albert Martin)
Are these valid categorizations for these men?
How do you define each fo these preaching approaches?
__________________
Pergamum
"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone
| |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
|
