Must RH preaching necessarily be this way?

[RamistThomist]

(Let me preface this by saying that I enjoy much of the scholarship of Redemptive-historical men. In fact, my mind is more geared toward that route.)



The thread onFervent Preaching mentioned that much preaching in the Redemptive-Historical camp lacks the fervor and unction of the old-timers.

Granted, Redemptive-historical preaching can be abused--and often is--but must it necessarily lack "fire and gut?"

Let me clarify:
1) Pick any old-timer (Al Martin or even John Piper--his preaching is intense) and compare the format of their sermons to those of a RH preacher.

2) Must a sermon that leans more to a narrative format necessarily lack the above coveted qualities?
Must a sermon in the format of three points lend itself more readily to the above desired aims?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

No. Ed Donelly for one uses the redemptive historical hermenuetic but he also believes in fervent preaching. It's not the herneutic itself, but what you do with it. RH because it is so detailed and weighty, it tends to leave out time for the application. You just have to work at narrowing down the exegitical insights to make them relevant to today. Otherwise, you just end up with a theology lecture.