Preaching Theology

[SATS PROF]

I'm sure he taught on that. He took 10 years to do Romans. He did not skip anything.

But using that word is meaningless. No one needs to know what that word refers to. Not a comment against you. Just a comment in general against big words that no one uses.

However, he did explain words that are in the bible.
Propitiation
Righteousness
Justification
Satisfaction

and concepts that are clearly biblical.

Penal Substitution
Justification by Faith

As I said,m I give up!

 

[JonC]

As I said,m I give up!

I think he is used to hearing that.

 

[tyndale1946]

Bro Glern, I used words which are found in Systematic Theology books and Theological dictionaries.. I guess I'm in the wrong place. No, this site discusses Baptist Theology, right? Have you thought of looking up those words?

No? Ok.

Communication of attributes is the doctrine that the deity in Christ provides His human nature with divine qualities. (eg, Piper)

Eternal generation is the oft taught view that the Father eternally births the Son's Personhood or deity (eg Giles)

Eternal spirastion is the question of whether the Holy Spirit is eternally spirated from the Father as (eg Berkhof)

Enhyopostasia is the view that the divine nature is the only Subject of the acts of Christ. (eg Buswell)
These all are important to understanding the NT.

I hear what you are saying but in the words of an old preacher... I'm just like you are... The only difference between you an I, is the Lord called me to preach... Remember the preacher is the overseer not the overlord... I've met dirt farmers, that have better learning , just them, their Bible and the Lord... All these helps are good but if it has the congregation scratching their head saying what did he say?... These are people and most don't have the intelligence you do and me I'm just a lowly laymen but I have been in the church for over 50 years and I've heard a thing or too... And have known many that don the cloth and the pulpit is to look at the congregation, not down on them... I'm glad you joined us but you put on your trousers on one leg at a time just like I do... Maybe there should be a a Baptist Theological Form?... Maybe you would fit in there better?... Did you hear that Admin?... Brother Glen

 

[SATS PROF]

Don't preach everything under the sun... PREACH THE SON!... Brother Glen

Bro Glen, Do you think that "preaching Christ" should include addressing issues as whether God' the Son's deity or Personhood is eternally begotten by the Father as taught by the church fathers and many today or whether in Christ are two faculties of will (human and divine) ? Theses questions are highly related to NT verses. Blessings, Bill

 

[Scarlett O.]

Bro Glern, I used words which are found in Systematic Theology books and Theological dictionaries.. I guess I'm in the wrong place. No, this site discusses Baptist Theology, right? Have you thought of looking up those words?

Why do you think you are in the "wrong place"? Because your use of the unfamiliar words, in your mind, proves us dumber than you?

Perhaps I've misconstrued you. Surely you don't believe us intellectually insecure or unlearned because you use unfamiliar words. I assure you the concept, albeit perhaps not the actual words, are familiar to some here.

I found your post to Piper asking him if the pastor in question taught "enhyopostasia", "dyothelitism", etc......to be purposefully insulting. Again, perhaps I read you wrong, but it came off as intellectual pride to me. I'm not judging because I don't know you. I'm just telling you how you came off.

Why didn't you just say, "What did he preach/teach about Jesus having a human will and a divine will?" Everyone could have joined the conversation then.
You could have even added parenthetically - "Oh, and by the way - that's called dyothelitism if anyone wants to research more about it."

There are some smart cookies here, including me.

But this is just a message board for fellowship, debate, and complicated things discussed simply.

You are the only one who can decide if you are in the "wrong place". I encourage you to stay, sans the verbiage, and you will find the discussions much more productive.

If I have misunderstood your reason for tossing out overly technical terms and metaphorically sighing and lowering yourself in post #20 to define them for us, I make my apologies in advance.

 

[SATS PROF]

I cannot recall at the drop of a hat every sermon or every Theological point taught. Are you attempting to say that he is not as astute or theologically deep as you because you have taught these things and maybe he did not mention every point that you mention?

I think Piper must be very astute. I know he has the M. Div. from Fuller (?) and the doctorate from Munich. But I have degrees too.
M.A. in Region, Point Loma University
M. Div. and Th.M. Western Seminary
Th. D. , Unizul
D. Min., Corban University
Like Bro Glen says, we all put our pants on the same way. Peace and blessings, Bill

 

[SATS PROF]

Why do you think you are in the "wrong place"? Because your use of the unfamiliar words, in your mind, proves us dumber than you?

Perhaps I've misconstrued you. Surely you don't believe us intellectually insecure or unlearned because you use unfamiliar words. I assure you the concept, albeit perhaps not the actual words, are familiar to some here.

I found your post to Piper asking him if the pastor in question taught "enhyopostasia", "dyothelitism", etc......to be purposefully insulting. Again, perhaps I read you wrong, but it came off as intellectual pride to me. I'm not judging because I don't know you. I'm just telling you how you came off.

Why didn't you just say, "What did he preach/teach about Jesus having a human will and a divine will?" Everyone could have joined the conversation then.
You could have even added parenthetically - "Oh, and by the way - that's called dyothelitism if anyone wants to research more about it."

There are some smart cookies here, including me.

But this is just a message board for fellowship, debate, and complicated things discussed simply.

You are the only one who can decide if you are in the "wrong place". I encourage you to stay, sans the verbiage, and you will find the discussions much more productive.

If I have misunderstood your reason for tossing out overly technical terms and metaphorically sighing and lowering yourself in post #20 to define them for us, I make my apologies in advance.

I am properly scolded. I will refrain from using theological terms on the Baptist THEOLOGY forum.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I am properly scolded. I will refrain from using theological terms on the Baptist THEOLOGY forum.

I didn't say NOT to use them at all.

I said not to use them as verbiage. I explained, in red, the way TO use them.

 

[SATS PROF]

I think Piper must be very astute. I know he has the M. Div. from Fuller (?) and the doctorate from Munich. But I have degrees too.
M.A. in Region, Point Loma University
M. Div. and Th.M. Western Seminary
Th. D. , Unizul
D. Min., Corban University
Like Bro Glen says, we all put our pants on the same way. Peace and blessings, Bill

 

[SATS PROF]

I didn't say NOT to use them at all.

I said not to use them as verbiage. I explained, in red, the way TO use them.

_____+

Thank for that clarification. I feel that I don't quite understand you. What you wrote in red does not includes those words. It EXPLAINS. Still in the thread, I DID explain those terms. Perhaps you overlooked that. Blessing, Bill.

 

[Piper]

I think Piper must be very astute. I know he has the M. Div. from Fuller (?) and the doctorate from Munich. But I have degrees too.
M.A. in Region, Point Loma University
M. Div. and Th.M. Western Seminary
Th. D. , Unizul
D. Min., Corban University
Like Bro Glen says, we all put our pants on the same way. Peace and blessings, Bill

Degrees mean nothing. I have 3, but I might be the dumbest blockhead on this forum.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Thanks for that clarification. I feel that I don't quite understand you. What you wrote in red does not includes those words. It EXPLAINS. Still in the thread, I DID explain those terms. Perhaps you overlooked that. Blessing, Bill.[/QUOTE]

Here is exactly what I said. Read both red sentences.

Why didn't you just say, "What did he preach/teach about Jesus having a human will and a divine will?" Everyone could have joined the conversation then.
You could have even added parenthetically - "Oh, and by the way - that's called dyothelitism if anyone wants to research more about it."

 

[SATS PROF]

I didn't say NOT to use them at all.

I said not to use them as verbiage. I explained, in red, the way TO use them.

++++++++++++++++++++

Upon re reading your post, I do now understand your point..It is appreciated. Thanks. Bill

Degrees mean nothing. I have 3, but as JonC points out, I might be the dumbest blockhead on this forum.

=====================

I think that

Degrees mean nothing. I have 3, but as JonC points out, I might be the dumbest blockhead on this forum.

=====================

I disagree. I think degrees do mean something is they are acquired by rigorous leaning. But I think if I offended you, I should apologize. Sorry. I will try not to be so argumentative. Blessings, Bill

 

[tyndale1946]

Degrees mean nothing. I have 3, but I might be the dumbest blockhead on this forum.

Degrees mean nothing to me also, my wife has a Masters and I have a two year degree.... But decrees are another thing and the only one I know that has a decree is God... His decrees are eternal ( Acts 15:18 ; Ephesians 1:4 ; 2 th 2:13 ), unchangeable ( Psalms 33:11 ; Isaiah 46:9 ), and comprehend all things that come to pass ( Ephesians 1:11 ; Matthew 10:29 Matthew 10:30 ; Ephesians 2:10 ; Acts 2:23 ; Acts 4:27 Acts 4:28 ; Psalms 17:13 Psalms 17:14 )... Brother Glen

 

[The Archangel]

I was converted in '69 when 19 under the ministry of Tim La Haye at Scott Memorial Baptist Church in San Diego. Yes, Tim preached Theology, but only re the Second Coming..

Since then in my scores of years of believing, I've never heard a sermon in any church which I attended a message entirely devoted to informing listeners of the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the natures in Christ, original sin , different views on baptism or refuting cults. Yet the NT is filled with teaching about these.
So, in my opinion, many pastors are not teaching the doctrine they should. (Acts 20:30,31, Jude 3, Titus 1:9, Rev 2:2, 1 Thess 4:13, Col 1:10; Rom 16:17, 2 Tim 2:2,)

Do you agree or disagree?

There are multiple issues here.... and it is best that we not conflate them...

First, the preaching from the pulpit at the main gathering of the church (usually the Sunday morning gathering) should not be a place to preach doctrine for the sake of doctrine alone. To preach doctrine outside of the biblical context in which it occurs is to, essentially, preach topical, hobby-horse type messages. A steady diet of this type of preaching will rot the soul and deprive the members of the local church of everything you've stated you want them to have.

When it appears in a text, doctrine must be taught, explained, and preached. For instance: A message on the baptism of Jesus should include (in some form) an explanation of the Trinity. However, that's not all it should include. It may better serve the congregation to explain the Trinity from Jesus' baptism, but wait for the deeper dive until the Sunday evening or mid-week gathering. Perhaps, though, you might spend an entire Sunday morning message on the Trinity after it is introduced in the message dealing with Jesus' baptism.

A robust "Sunday School" offering on the deeper things of theology or an offering for a small group setting would be best.

The challenge here is that the congregations needs a steady expository diet in which they are lead through book after book of scripture. This expository journey should (and, I would argue, must) deal with, preach, and teach theology. But there is a huge problem preaching theology outside of the biblical context in which it appears. We don't want to have our people be "hunters-and-peckers."

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

the congregations needs a steady expository diet

A preacher can never go wrong by doing this....:

27 And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Lu 24

....because 'the joy of the Lord' is our strength:

32 And they said one to another, Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures? Lu 24

 

[JonC]

Considering this thread for some time now.

I have come to the conclusion that I do not believe we should preach theology.

While theology is important, we should preach the Word of God in order to equip the saints and strengthen the church. We should evangelize by proclaiming the gospel.

The problem with preaching theology (to clarify, I mean Systematic Theology) is that it incorporates the extra-biblical.

So I would say use theology in preaching, but preach God's Word. And when using theology in preaching, always include "I interpret" or "I believe" followed by "test what I say against what is written in Scripture".

I mean, make sure the congregation understands where Scripture ends and individual understanding of Scripture begins.

 

[SATS PROF]

There are multiple issues here.... and it is best that we not conflate them...

First, the preaching from the pulpit at the main gathering of the church (usually the Sunday morning gathering) should not be a place to preach doctrine for the sake of doctrine alone. To preach doctrine outside of the biblical context in which it occurs is to, essentially, preach topical, hobby-horse type messages. A steady diet of this type of preaching will rot the soul and deprive the members of the local church of everything you've stated you want them to have.

When it appears in a text, doctrine must be taught, explained, and preached. For instance: A message on the baptism of Jesus should include (in some form) an explanation of the Trinity. However, that's not all it should include. It may better serve the congregation to explain the Trinity from Jesus' baptism, but wait for the deeper dive until the Sunday evening or mid-week gathering. Perhaps, though, you might spend an entire Sunday morning message on the Trinity after it is introduced in the message dealing with Jesus' baptism.

A robust "Sunday School" offering on the deeper things of theology or an offering for a small group setting would be best.

The challenge here is that the congregations needs a steady expository diet in which they are lead through book after book of scripture. This expository journey should (and, I would argue, must) deal with, preach, and teach theology. But there is a huge problem preaching theology outside of the biblical context in which it appears. We don't want to have our people be "hunters-and-peckers."

The Archangel

===============================

I think that systematic theology could be preached using relevant texts:
.
John 1:14. But I never heard a preacher evidence his view on "begotten."
John John 20:31. But I never heard a preacher explain the four different views of what "Son of God" means.
Titus 2::13, But I never heard a preacher explain why grammar proves that "God" and "Savior" must refer to one subject.
etc

 

[The Archangel]

===============================

I think that systematic theology could be preached using relevant texts:
.
John 1:14. But I never heard a preacher evidence his view on "begotten."
John John 20:31. But I never heard a preacher explain the four different views of what "Son of God" means.
Titus 2::13, But I never heard a preacher explain why grammar proves that "God" and "Savior" must refer to one subject.
etc

When those texts come up.... sure. Absolutely. Some of the deeper things (as you've listed above) should be discussed. But, those things are not likely to be the main point of the passage. If they are--by all means--preach that theology. If those important theological points are not the main point of the passage, don't confuse your people by pretending they are.

The Archangel

 

[tyndale1946]

Considering this thread for some time now.

I have come to the conclusion that I do not believe we should preach theology.

While theology is important, we should preach the Word of God in order to equip the saints and strengthen the church. We should evangelize by proclaiming the gospel.

The problem with preaching theology (to clarify, I mean Systematic Theology) is that it incorporates the extra-biblical.

So I would say use theology in preaching, but preach God's Word. And when using theology in preaching, always include "I interpret" or "I believe" followed by "test what I say against what is written in Scripture".

I mean, make sure the congregation understands where Scripture ends and individual understanding of Scripture begins.

2 Timothy 4: 1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Enough said... Brother Glen