Redemptive-Historical Preaching at Your Church?

Does your pastor employ a redemptive-historical approach in preaching?

  • Always

  • Often

  • Seldom

  • Never


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

SkylerGerald

Puritan Board Freshman
I am curious to know how popular this preaching philosophy (and underlying hermeneutic) is here. Whether you are a pastor and you're responding for yourself or you're a parishioner, I am curious to know.

I realize there are many nuances that one may bring to defining redemptive historical preaching. For brevity's sake, I will use the definition as employed by WTS:

"Christ should be central to all preaching exactly because he is central to all of Scripture (Rom 1:1–4; Gal 3:1–9; 1 Pet 1:10–12). A sermon’s doctrine, application, organization, and delivery must rest upon the proclamation and explication of “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). What a great calamity it would be if we crafted beautiful sermons, but remained “foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25).

At Westminster, we strive in our preaching to begin “with Moses and all the Prophets” (Luke 24:27), interpreting all of Scripture in relation to our Lord’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension. This christocentric approach to preaching does not ignore linguistic features, historical backgrounds, or any other exegetically relevant information. Rather, this approach places that information within the context of the redemptive work of God in history, which climaxes in the person and work of Jesus Christ."
 
As one preacher among many, all which are differently gifted as to delivery and style of preaching and all which are commonly called by Christ to feed his flock, I always aim to make Christ preeminent in my sermon, whether the text is taken from the NT or the OT. I don't think one is rightly handling God's word if, when treating of the patriarchal history or the national history of Israel or wisdom literature or the writing prophets, one ignores the place of any one part of the Christ-centered revelation in the larger whole.

Christ doesn't need to be "shoehorned" into the text somehow (by any means necessary...); rather, one should be sure not to leave him out, perhaps by so narrowly construing a passage that the Spirit-authored connection to the overriding aim of the Bible is obscured. Moreover, the details of a particular passage work harmoniously with the near and far context, such that bringing in other passages of the Bible for hearers to bear in mind along with the focused text helps them grasp not only the substance of the historic moment of description or delivery, but the grand substance. It is the message of Christ, and all the other persons and speakers in and from the text are his supporters (even at times against their intention).

Biblical theology is not or should not be divorced from doctrinal concerns--as if Christ himself was not full of doctrine, or understandable apart from true teaching about him and from him. A passage treating the topic of election or adoption or justification or sanctification, etc.--major biblical themes and minor--must benefit in its preaching from some support for its immediate aim by drawing on related passages. Yet. a systematic treatment of biblical anthropology or eschatology (for example) is a waste if there is no ultimate orientation in it to the One who is the sum and unity of divine revelation.

Biblical theology does not preclude application, even if some practitioners appear less concerned (or skilled) than others to find certain "relevant angles." Sometimes, this quest for practical uses from a text is hardly different from allegorizing, as some manage it. Likewise, a preacher incompetent in tracing the biblical theological current may attempt an uncoordinated "leap" to a Christological theme to which the passage in view is ill-suited to lead, when a better Christ-theme demanded no ungainly effort, and was a simple and proper application.

A while ago I found a useful heuristic for checking the "balance" of my sermons. If the sermon is first and last about what God does or did, especially as it pertains to the salvation of sinners, then it is not likely that a few intermediate encouragements, rebukes, or directives concerning what man does or ought to do will distract from the primary matter of divine self-disclosure in scripture. How those items come up in one sermon or over several is a product of the interest of the text itself, rather than the preacher's interest. The great application of Holy Scripture is that we understand and know God who makes himself and his mind known, who is known best through or by means of the Son.

"Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." 2Pet.3:18
 
As one preacher among many, all which are differently gifted as to delivery and style of preaching and all which are commonly called by Christ to feed his flock, I always aim to make Christ preeminent in my sermon, whether the text is taken from the NT or the OT. I don't think one is rightly handling God's word if, when treating of the patriarchal history or the national history of Israel or wisdom literature or the writing prophets, one ignores the place of any one part of the Christ-centered revelation in the larger whole.

Christ doesn't need to be "shoehorned" into the text somehow (by any means necessary...); rather, one should be sure not to leave him out, perhaps by so narrowly construing a passage that the Spirit-authored connection to the overriding aim of the Bible is obscured. Moreover, the details of a particular passage work harmoniously with the near and far context, such that bringing in other passages of the Bible for hearers to bear in mind along with the focused text helps them grasp not only the substance of the historic moment of description or delivery, but the grand substance. It is the message of Christ, and all the other persons and speakers in and from the text are his supporters (even at times against their intention).

Biblical theology is not or should not be divorced from doctrinal concerns--as if Christ himself was not full of doctrine, or understandable apart from true teaching about him and from him. A passage treating the topic of election or adoption or justification or sanctification, etc.--major biblical themes and minor--must benefit in its preaching from some support for its immediate aim by drawing on related passages. Yet. a systematic treatment of biblical anthropology or eschatology (for example) is a waste if there is no ultimate orientation in it to the One who is the sum and unity of divine revelation.

Biblical theology does not preclude application, even if some practitioners appear less concerned (or skilled) than others to find certain "relevant angles." Sometimes, this quest for practical uses from a text is hardly different from allegorizing, as some manage it. Likewise, a preacher incompetent in tracing the biblical theological current may attempt an uncoordinated "leap" to a Christological theme to which the passage in view is ill-suited to lead, when a better Christ-theme demanded no ungainly effort, and was a simple and proper application.

A while ago I found a useful heuristic for checking the "balance" of my sermons. If the sermon is first and last about what God does or did, especially as it pertains to the salvation of sinners, then it is not likely that a few intermediate encouragements, rebukes, or directives concerning what man does or ought to do will distract from the primary matter of divine self-disclosure in scripture. How those items come up in one sermon or over several is a product of the interest of the text itself, rather than the preacher's interest. The great application of Holy Scripture is that we understand and know God who makes himself and his mind known, who is known best through or by means of the Son.

"Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." 2Pet.3:18
Well said!
 
Yes, I was trained to be a redemptive-historical preacher and wouldn't want it otherwise. Woe be to me (and any other preacher) if I would fail to preach Christ from all the Scriptures!
 
"Christ should be central to all preaching exactly because he is central to all of Scripture (Rom 1:1–4; Gal 3:1–9; 1 Pet 1:10–12). A sermon’s doctrine, application, organization, and delivery must rest upon the proclamation and explication of “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). What a great calamity it would be if we crafted beautiful sermons, but remained “foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25).

At Westminster, we strive in our preaching to begin “with Moses and all the Prophets” (Luke 24:27), interpreting all of Scripture in relation to our Lord’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension. This christocentric approach to preaching does not ignore linguistic features, historical backgrounds, or any other exegetically relevant information. Rather, this approach places that information within the context of the redemptive work of God in history, which climaxes in the person and work of Jesus Christ."
I don't think this is an accurate definition of redemptive-historical preaching. I am generally against redemptive-historical preaching, and yet I affirm all of this. I understand that redemptive-historical preaching is a spectrum, but generally, it is a school that tends to shy away from the imperative in preaching. Historically, this was a reaction to preaching that was almost exclusively moralistic/exemplaristic. However, in my estimation, redemptive-historical preaching often goes too far in that every sermon essentially becomes "a biblical theology of X," with little to no application (i.e., imperative). Whereas moralistic preaching says, "Repent and believe the gospel," redemptive-historical preaching often says, "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus says both: "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Therefore, repent and believe the gospel." The direction of preaching ought to be, first, what God has done, and only on that basis, second, what man ought to do in response. That order should not be altered, and certainly not reversed.

Again, I understand there is more nuance to this. Not all redemptive-historical preachers avoid the imperative; I get that. A short but excellent book criticizes the more extreme forms of redemptive-historical preaching: John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002). It is a worthwhile read. Especially see pp. 108-146 for an explanation and critique of redemptive-historical preaching.
 
I don't think this is an accurate definition of redemptive-historical preaching. I am generally against redemptive-historical preaching, and yet I affirm all of this. I understand that redemptive-historical preaching is a spectrum, but generally, it is a school that tends to shy away from the imperative in preaching. Historically, this was a reaction to preaching that was almost exclusively moralistic/exemplaristic. However, in my estimation, redemptive-historical preaching often goes too far in that every sermon essentially becomes "a biblical theology of X," with little to no application (i.e., imperative). Whereas moralistic preaching says, "Repent and believe the gospel," redemptive-historical preaching often says, "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus says both: "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Therefore, repent and believe the gospel." The direction of preaching ought to be, first, what God has done, and only on that basis, second, what man ought to do in response. That order should not be altered, and certainly not reversed.

Again, I understand there is more nuance to this. Not all redemptive-historical preachers avoid the imperative; I get that. A short but excellent book criticizes the more extreme forms of redemptive-historical preaching: John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002). It is a worthwhile read. Especially see pp. 108-146 for an explanation and critique of redemptive-historical preaching.
That's the same thing I've understood it to be.
 
Someone stated somewhere that he sat under both Bryan Chappell and Joel Beeke's preaching. He believed there was no essential felt difference between both in terms of emphases.

So the danger is if someone avoids a church simply because he hears that the preaching is X and he may be inclined to think such preaching excludes Y (which may not be true)
 
I don't think this is an accurate definition of redemptive-historical preaching. I am generally against redemptive-historical preaching, and yet I affirm all of this. I understand that redemptive-historical preaching is a spectrum, but generally, it is a school that tends to shy away from the imperative in preaching. Historically, this was a reaction to preaching that was almost exclusively moralistic/exemplaristic. However, in my estimation, redemptive-historical preaching often goes too far in that every sermon essentially becomes "a biblical theology of X," with little to no application (i.e., imperative). Whereas moralistic preaching says, "Repent and believe the gospel," redemptive-historical preaching often says, "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Jesus says both: "The time is fulfilled; the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Therefore, repent and believe the gospel." The direction of preaching ought to be, first, what God has done, and only on that basis, second, what man ought to do in response. That order should not be altered, and certainly not reversed.

Again, I understand there is more nuance to this. Not all redemptive-historical preachers avoid the imperative; I get that. A short but excellent book criticizes the more extreme forms of redemptive-historical preaching: John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2002). It is a worthwhile read. Especially see pp. 108-146 for an explanation and critique of redemptive-historical preaching.
That's the same thing I've understood it to be.
This is interesting to me. The above definition is how I’ve understood redemptive-historical preaching (although I admit that my exposure to it has been primarily within my local church). Our pastor studied under Chapell and one of the major takeaways of our congregation is how specific and pointed that the application in preaching regularly is. In my own training, our pastor is always pointing me toward improving in the area of application. I say all of that to say that application is far from absent in my own context. It seems that the issue is with redemptive-historical preaching being executed poorly rather than the model itself. I will have to check out the Carrick book!
 
This is interesting to me. The above definition is how I’ve understood redemptive-historical preaching (although I admit that my exposure to it has been primarily within my local church). Our pastor studied under Chapell and one of the major takeaways of our congregation is how specific and pointed that the application in preaching regularly is. In my own training, our pastor is always pointing me toward improving in the area of application. I say all of that to say that application is far from absent in my own context. It seems that the issue is with redemptive-historical preaching being executed poorly rather than the model itself. I will have to check out the Carrick book!
Interesting. I wonder if anyone has evidence of such RH preaching devoid of application. I hear of it but have never truly heard it.
 
Last edited:
This discussion highlights the challenge of definitions. After all, we all agree that moralistic preaching is a problem, yet I've never met someone who identifies as as a moralistic preacher.

Carrick's book has not completely fabricated its concern. There are preachers out there who would identify as redemptive-historical who are reluctant ever to do application (I think of a sermon on "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" that was all about Christ loving the church but never quite told the hearers that they too should love their wives). Indeed, Sidney Greidanus' work on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament is very light on application. On the other hand, as has been noted, Bryan Chapell's work "Christ centered preaching" stresses the importance of application (alongside explanation and illustration) as one of the three tasks of the preacher. and certainly fits within the redemptive historical category. Rev. Buchanan's description is much closer to what we would teach our students at Westminster.

The conclusion is that we should be wary about "scare stories" about redemptive-historical preaching (and perhaps also about moralistic preaching). The assumption that "redemptive-historical preaching doesn't do application" is simply false as a generalization. People mean different things by the labels and so further questions need to be asked.
 
This discussion highlights the challenge of definitions. After all, we all agree that moralistic preaching is a problem, yet I've never met someone who identifies as as a moralistic preacher.

Carrick's book has not completely fabricated its concern. There are preachers out there who would identify as redemptive-historical who are reluctant ever to do application (I think of a sermon on "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church" that was all about Christ loving the church but never quite told the hearers that they too should love their wives). Indeed, Sidney Greidanus' work on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament is very light on application. On the other hand, as has been noted, Bryan Chapell's work "Christ centered preaching" stresses the importance of application (alongside explanation and illustration) as one of the three tasks of the preacher. and certainly fits within the redemptive historical category. Rev. Buchanan's description is much closer to what we would teach our students at Westminster.

The conclusion is that we should be wary about "scare stories" about redemptive-historical preaching (and perhaps also about moralistic preaching). The assumption that "redemptive-historical preaching doesn't do application" is simply false as a generalization. People mean different things by the labels and so further questions need to be asked.
Yes, hence my qualification that I realize there is more nuance than I gave. There certainly is a spectrum.
 
If the definition is what the opening post gave, that the preaching points us to Christ no matter where in the Bible it begins, then the preaching in my church is always redemptive-historical. So is my own Sunday school teaching for the kids. I would not have it any other way. This does not mean avoiding instruction about how a believer should live. A life that glorifies God is a big part of what Christ gives, and striving to live that way is an element in our sharing-in-Christ glory.

Whereas moralistic preaching says, "Repent and believe the gospel,"
As a side note, I would not label the call to repent and have faith as "moralistic." True repentance and gospel faith are very different from how most people think of their efforts to be moral. Moralism performs for God or appeals to our own credentials. Repentance and faith repudiate our desires and our own credentials, and turn us to Christ.
 
As a side note, I would not label the call to repent and have faith as "moralistic." True repentance and gospel faith are very different from how most people think of their efforts to be moral. Moralism performs for God or appeals to our own credentials. Repentance and faith repudiate our desires and our own credentials, and turn us to Christ.
I was simply using Jesus’ command in Mark 1 as an illustration. While “repent and believe the gospel” is not necessarily moralism, a bare “Repent!” almost certainly would be. The point is that imperatives detached from the grand indicative is moralism.
 
As a side note, I would not label the call to repent and have faith as "moralistic." True repentance and gospel faith are very different from how most people think of their efforts to be moral. Moralism performs for God or appeals to our own credentials. Repentance and faith repudiate our desires and our own credentials, and turn us to Christ.

I was simply using Jesus’ command in Mark 1 as an illustration. While “repent and believe the gospel” is not necessarily moralism, a bare “Repent!” almost certainly would be. The point is that imperatives detached from the grand indicative is moralism.
As someone who experienced moralism for most of their life, I approve this message.:amen:

I was thinking the same thing… repent without gospel is moralism and one of the most deadly things a person can hear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top