Current Non-Cal Expository Pastors

I disagree that the slap-dash is favored by masses. In one church I served, I preached primarily through books. My successor did not. I heard tons of comments from these folks about how I "spoiled" them. (I say this with all humility)

Adrian hated Calvinism.

I'm thinking of more living and practicing pastors. Obviously, Jerry Vines is expository but retired.

 

Where in the formation of the church is it modeled? We are not told it includes topical...but we are sure told that it should be expository using the same means.

No, I mean there are different styles of preaching...not all expository.

You are falsely assuming the Holy Spirit has no role in what the pastor is lead to preach on. If it were simply just a guy off the street talking about whatever he wanted to, I might agree...but this is not the case in the majority of churches.

Agreed.

It can miss the mark...if it were strictly man's logic (like Dr. Phil)...but again, this is not the case in the majority of evangelical, Bible based churches.

...and I believe God's terms are to meet people on theirs as well.

Can't we all have been exposed to some lousy preachers? I think marching through a book in the Bible for a year to not be the best approach, and if this is what you have been exposed to....

This is a mighty haughty statement to make. Translation: My conviction = seeing the Bible for what it truly is. Others who don't share my conviction = seeing the Bible as less that what it truly is.
FYI...I don't hold your conviction...and I still see the Bible for what it truly is

This is what I mean...we are taught this approach is the "best", so what other response would you have expected? I noticed this to be true especially amongst calvinists, and to be quite honest, humility doesn't exactly shine through from a lot of the calvinist preachers I have heard.

 

Do you mean Calvinist or Reformed? If Calvinist define what you understand one must believe to be Calvinist.

Most who talk about expository preaching cannot define it properly. An expository sermon gets the main theme from an extended passage of scripture and the main points and sub points come from the passage and are the result of sound exegesis.

Most Reformed men preach textually or theologically derived messages. They are subject oriented rather than textually teaching oriented. Many often have main points from a short text and sub points from elsewhere or the subject. Not real Bible teaching.

 

Adrian Rogers was a textual preacher not an Expository preacher. He also preached topically.

 

Try most Calvery Chapel sites. Here is the original:

http://www.calvarychapel.com/

http://twft.com/?page=C2000

I'm sure you can find many churches that are not Calvinistic that teach expositionally and provide online resources. Richard Jackson was my favorite growing up but unfortunately North Phoenix doesn't provide his sermons online since he is long retired.

We Calvinist have it a lot easier:

http://www.monergism.com/mp3/

 

I've never understood this differentiation, as most homileticians agree. What do you mean by this? Curious.

Acts 2, et.al.

I don't doubt the Holy Spirit can lead to lectio selecta, but why can't the same Spirit lead a pastor to lectio continua? And why not preach what the Holy Spirit inspired the way the Holy Spirit inspired it?

Is it your opinion that the majority of evangelical, Bible based churches are engaged in true Biblical preaching?

I don't disagree, and believe exposition of Bible books can do this.

I'm sure we have.

Who said one book in a year?

This is eisegesis on your part. I firmly believe that if someone is truly expositing Scripture, it won't be boring. Has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. Bit of a non-sequitur.

Well, they could've said they hated the book method. That's an option

I personally see more humility from Reformed folks than others, and from expositors as opposed to non-expositors. However, that's simply my opinion/experience.

 

Mine too. Last I saw of him, he was starting a ministry where he was equipping people for personal evangelism. I loved this man's heart for the Bible and for evangelism. Is he still around or is he in glory? (You could do a book of his quotes and use one every Sunday for an illustration. My favorite? "The church is called to be fishers of men, and too many churches want to clean the fish before they catch em"

 

Still alive and in ministry: http://www.jacksoncenter.org/

He was going verse by verse through the book of John when I discovered him (my dad watched him every saturday night). For the 1st time in my life I enjoyed listening to sermons. I've been in love with expository preaching ever since.
I have hundreds of his sermons on cassettes, but I no longer have a player. Guess I'll throw them all away. :tear:

 

Don't do that. I think there are folks who can turn tapes into CDs. The quality isn't great. Maybe post a message in our computer/technology forum. I'll try to rememeber who did that for me in the past.

 

Churck Swindol, David Jeremiah, as I said previously, most GARBC churches, most graduates of Liberty Seminary, etc. As for Michael Youssef, I am pretty sure that he is a Calvinist, just a D. James Kennedy Calvinist (never mention it on TV).

The reason we preach expositionally is because that is how God inspired the Word, one word at a time. And what does 2 Tim 4:1-5 mean if it does not refer to exposition--how else can we preach the Word? We preach the Word, not about the Woerd, nor AT the Word, nor using the word to butress our formulae, and out of context, but PREACH THE WORD. Calvinsts and Arminians alike have "problem verses" which (as Paige Patterson said) they try to deal with by "facile handling..."

 

Are you telling me that when preaching a sermon you only read from Scripture...and the same when witnessing?!?

 

I am not sure what that has to do with expository preaching. Of course we use words to "give the sense" and make application. . If you preach the Word and stay faithful to it in context, linguistics, and and the analogy of the faith, that is exposition.

What we don't do is take a text then practice "eisegesis" to make the text say what we want it to say.

 

...yet we see many "expository" preachers do this very thing in their exposition. Eisegesis is not immune to expository preaching. I hear many calvinist preachers practice eisegesis week in and week out. My confusion was in your statement we are not to preach about the Word, and hence the reason for the question. If we are not to preach about the Word that would mean only reading from the Word aloud would be acceptable.

 

I would argue that eisegesis is not exposition in it's true sense.

I agree though. I hear many non-Calvinist preachers preach eisegetically week in and week out.

I know just what Major B means when he says some preachers talk about the Bible and don't preach the Bible. They say "Biblical" things. They preach true things. But they don't preach the Bible and they don't preach the truth. I've given examples already. If you'd like more, I'll be happy to provide them.

Preaching must expound the Scriptures. The sermon's thrust should be the thrust of the text. The hermeneutic should be the homiletic. You'd think that would be basic, but to an overwhelming number of even so called evangelicals, this is a foreign concept.

 

I think another factor is eisegesis being in the eye of the beholder. Since we hold to 2 differing soteriological views, we each see the other side as eisegesis.

 

I don't disagree. That said, an honest exegete can see where an argument is derived from a passage - even if one disagrees - or imposed upon one. I frequently hear sermons on eschatology where I disagree with the viewpoint but see why they make their exegetical argument. This is opposite those sermons where someone starts with a premise and finds "proof texts" that only an Olympic gymnast could strain to make.

 

Yes they do:thumbs:
Jesus always used stories and illustrations like these when speaking to the crowds. In fact, he never spoke to them without using such parables. —Matt. 13:34 NLT

 

Youssef definitely has Calvinistic leanings to say the least. I started a thread on it some time back but didn't get any response. It seems that not a lot of BB folks don't know who he is even though he's on hundreds of radio stations and television, even on TBN.

He was deeded the ministry of Ben Haden, formerly the pastor of First Presbyterian of Memphis. Haden, like Youssef, never mentioned Calvinism, although as a Presby Pastor he obviously was a Calvinist.

I don't think Kennedy was shy about going in that direction, it's just that his emphasis, especially in the TV and Radio ministry, was on "The Cultural Mandate" - the idea of restoring or bringing the culture into obedience to God's Word. He was Postmil, and a light reconstructionist/dominionist.