Teaching vs Preaching

[Notthemama1984]

What are the differences between teaching and preaching?

 

[Whitefield]

Although there may be overlap, I think the distinction is:
teaching is primarily to impart information
preaching is primarily to change lives

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree on the overlap.

Both (in this case) are for spiritual edification. I would put the difference this way:

Teaching is for the improvement of our understanding and capability in spiritual matters. It's about us.

Preaching is for the Authorized proclamation of the great works of God in Redemption. It's about God.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Could someone provide links as examples of both?

 

[Andres]

The biggest difference that I notice is that preaching has a specific text that it all flows from. Basically expositional preaching should be the preacher expounding on their text. Others may disagree with me, but I don't think there is room for a preacher to insert his own thoughts or ideas. With teaching, I feel the teacher has more freedom to explain using a wide variety of techniques and they are not limited to a specific text. Teaching can and often is topical.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Andrew,

Your definitions were about what I had in my head. So if you are wrong, we are wrong together.

 

[Whitefield]

Basically expositional preaching should be the preacher expounding on their text.

Would that not make preaching merely 1) reading the Scripture and then 2) exegesis? Where in this does application fit?

 

[Andres]

Basically expositional preaching should be the preacher expounding on their text.

Would that not make preaching merely 1) reading the Scripture and then 2) exegesis? Where in this does application fit?

well I don't want to derail Boliver's thread, but your question assumes the preacher is to add his own application to the sermon. I don't know that I neccessarily think this fits into preaching.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

Andrew,

Your definitions were about what I had in my head. So if you are wrong, we are wrong together.

cool. I consider you good company my friend.

 

[Whitefield]

Basically expositional preaching should be the preacher expounding on their text.

Would that not make preaching merely 1) reading the Scripture and then 2) exegesis? Where in this does application fit?

well I don't want to derail Boliver's thread, but your question assumes the preacher is to add his own application to the sermon. I don't know that I neccessarily think this fits into preaching.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

Andrew,

Your definitions were about what I had in my head. So if you are wrong, we are wrong together.

cool. I consider you good company my friend.

I'm not sure if we are talking past each other. But once the message of the text has been established, then preacher should apply that message to the contemporary lives of his listeners. Stopping after reading the text and exegeting it leaves out the application. To bring this back to the teacher/preacher OP, a teacher might have finished his job after exegesis, but the preacher must take it one step farther and apply it to people's lives, and sometimes that requires the preacher to be creative.

 

[cih1355]

A preacher is like a town crier who is authorized to proclaim the king's message. He announces what the king wants people to hear. When he is proclaiming the message, he is not facilitating a group discussion.

 

[Andres]

Basically expositional preaching should be the preacher expounding on their text.

Would that not make preaching merely 1) reading the Scripture and then 2) exegesis? Where in this does application fit?

well I don't want to derail Boliver's thread, but your question assumes the preacher is to add his own application to the sermon. I don't know that I neccessarily think this fits into preaching.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

Andrew,

Your definitions were about what I had in my head. So if you are wrong, we are wrong together.

cool. I consider you good company my friend.

I'm not sure if we are talking past each other. But once the message of the text has been established, then preacher should apply that message to the contemporary lives of his listeners. Stopping after reading the text and exegeting it leaves out the application. To bring this back to the teacher/preacher OP, a teacher might have finished his job after exegesis, but the preacher must take it one step farther and apply it to people's lives, and sometimes that requires the preacher to be creative.

I don't think we are talking past each other. Again, I don't want to derail this thread, so I would be happy to continue this discussion (and it would most likely be more fruitful if others contributed their thoughts as well) in a new thread. I don't know that it's neccessary that a preacher add an application. I think that if the text is well exegeted, the congregation can draw their own conclusions as to what they need to do with the Word they just heard.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I created a new thread. Please do continue discussing the topic of application.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f23/application-65141/#post837383