ever heard of anything like this?

I am thankful for my pastor

 

Being committed and having passion does not make them right....many have passion about the wrong things...he has to line up with scripture.

Molly

 

Sorry...I totally messed up that qoute with what I wrote. That is sooo confusing to read...so sorry!

 

Whew!!!! That's a load off my mind And here I have thought that your continual use of that phrase was for my benefit. Now that you have cleared that up can you stop using it? Also while you attempted to answer that part of my post how about the rest of what I said. I would like your opinion of Paul's use of object lessons on Mar's Hill.
Murph

By the way you are right I am not the only one reading these threads but I do think I am the only one who questioned many of your threads by asking why everything you talk about was loaded with calvinistic views.

 

I like making a point with illustrations like that, however I doubt I would use that one myself. I would probably miscalculate the thickness of breastplate and strength of knife if I tried that one

Pete

 

I was out yesterday most of the day and missed this thread. I simply wanted to add a couple of points:

1) The Edwards presentation of Sinners in the Hands is pure speculation. There is no reliable historical evidence on how Edwards actually presented the message. Read any good Edwards scholar and you will discover the legendary status to which some of the Edwards stories rose. What is clear from the sermon is that Edwards used an ANALOGY, ie. ILLUSTRATION of a spider dangling over the fire to picture souls in danger of Hell. He illustrated his point visually (using a verbal picture) which helped communicate his message.

2) Comparing Edward's methodology with modern culture is an irrelevant point. People learned and listened in a different fashion than people learn and listen in our media-driven culture. Edward's presentation was common to his era. If the stories are true regarding his method (and I doubt they are based upon reading other accounts of his ministry), it would not be an effective method today. If you believe it is, try it, but you may also want to take out your air-conditioning, sit on wood planks, and make your services last for around 3 hours (since that is what Edwards did).

3) I have never heard Johnny Mac preach (which is many, many times) without using some form of an illustration. I have just received a DVD series from MacArthur where he is using visual aids to communicate the truth he is presenting. So the MacArthur point is moot.

4) Every effective communicator uses some form of an illustration (whether it is verbal or visual). So who gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not? I personally believe that the criteria has to rest in the message. If the truth is being communicated in an effective manner, the method is secondary. If the method undermines, changes, or alters the truth, it should be disregarded.

IMHO the preacher / communicator who chooses to limit himself to simply verbal illustrations is limiting his ability to communicate.

Bottom line:

After 24 hours, people actually remember:

5% of what they hear
15% of what they read
35% of what they study
57% of what they SEE and HEAR

You decide what is the most effective means of communication.

 

And it doesn't make you right either.

 

SBC,

Some illustrations are appropriate at times and yes John Mac,as well as many others use them at times....but that is not the focus of what they sermon consist of. I don't think anyone is saying *Using illustrations is unbiblical*...what we are saying is that this particular thing this guy did was somewhat over the line. I would think most people would remember what he did...but would they remember what he said? Studying God's word is a discipline and takes great diligence. It takes concentration and focus. I think at times,people want it to be a quick easy illustration or short little sermonette. So,the lack of diligence makes pastors feel they have to *do something* to keep the attention of the people,and at times this is appropriate. My question is with this particular example....is it appropriate or is anything and everything accepted as long as Jesus' name is tacked on to it.....?

 

And it doesn't make you right either. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right about that...in fact the only thing that is right is scripture. Everything has to line up with scripture,as I have always stated.

 

Ok folks,

Don't confuse me with this
Calvinism/Arminianism.

I follow Paul's advice and ask my husband
what does this mean.

My husband may be tired of trying
to explain it to me.

I just know what I believe based
on the Bible.

God Bless all of you.

Betty

 

Molly,

As one who spends many hours a week preparing to communicate God's truth to people every weekend, I know the diligence and study required to prepare a sermon. I also know that 30 hours in the study does not necessarily translate into an effective sermon. As John Stott so eloquently demonstrated, the preacher stands between two worlds -- the world of the Bible and the modern world. If the preacher is not able to bridge the gap between those two worlds, he will fail to communicate effectively.

Illustrations serve as windows to let the light in (via Spurgeon). They come in many forms. I am simply arguing that in our day and age visual illustration can be very effective in communicating biblical truth.

Can some be over the top? Obviously. But as I stated above, the appropriate criteria seems to be whether the message is distorted. You criticized sharply the use of media and other tools as inappropriate means of illustration. I simply challenge that assertion and suggest that such tools are very effective and appropriate in our media-driven culture.

Using modern methods of illustration and demonstration does not mean a preacher is not preaching the Bible. As we have discussed before, Jesus was a master at such techniques.

BTW, I would not use the knife illustration (if the whole picture has been presented above) but probably for different reasons than those cited by you and Preach.

As far as whether anyone remembers the truth behind such illustrations, rest assured that my people remember much better truths I communicate with visual aids than those I simply state.

One cannot argue with the stats above. Seeing and hearing leaves far greater impact.

 

Yes, the ploy was rather exhibitionistic. Did any of the Apostles try something like this? What about the Early Church Fathers?

Eye candy and shock value, nothing more.

I've never forgotten about the Breastplate of righeousness since the first time I heard about it, and it was simple, straightforward teaching.

 

SBC,

One who is thirsty will not forget where he found the well. A poor man will be very interested in the straightforward directions to a place where he can buy bread. Our local City Union Mission doesnt have to go to the homeless under the bridges or in the alleys and do a song and dance routine to get them to remember where the mission is located.

And so it is with the Gospel. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Isa. 55:1.

The blessing is pronounced upon the hungry and the thirsty, not those who are sated, yet many pulpiteers attempt to "create a hunger" much like the Hardee's commercials, by appealing to the lusts and not to the spirit.

 

Aaron,you are so right!

 

SBC,I am not opposed to innovation or modern inventions....I am opposed to anything that makes God's word secondary. Haven't I said this before.....?

Secondary as in...We don't trust enough in the power of the Word,so we have to find ways to make it more attractive...nope,can't go there.

 

Ummm, Aaron -- they had this thing about being able to do miracles and raise people from the dead and stuff. People sort of paid attention then

Granted, any illustrations pastors use now are not in the same class, but that does not mean they cannot or should not use illustrations when they deem appropriate.

 

My pastor was dressed in a nice suit on one particular Sunday morning. Nothing special, he normally does. He was preaching on being careful not to judge for "not everything was as it seems".

One of the points from the message that "stuck" with me was to get to know your fellow Christians even if you think, for some reason, that you might not get along with that person. Some people who might appear to act one way, might be completely different once you got to know this person. It was also more important to get to know the persons heart irregardless of the persons outer appearance.

I believe the text for the day was:

Anyway, the pastor was summing up the focal points of the message when he removed his jacket to reveal that his shirt was full of holes , only the forearms of his shirt were there (they were held up with rubber bands). He then removed his shoes to reveal that all of his toes poked out of holes in the socks (it made us ).

The illustration was made and it stuck. My 8-year old son still remembers the message from that Sunday when I ask him about why the pastor did what he did. Does my son remember the message from the preceeding and following week? He probably does, but I have no visual or mental clues in which to probe his memory to find out.

Feel free to comment on whether you feel my pastor did a "good" thing or "bad" thing. I know my pastor. I know the congregation. I posted this story because I thought it was clever. I did not hear one negative comment in part because any long term member knows to expect this kind of visual illustration of the scripture from my pastor from time to time. Of course, it is very possible that negative comments were made and I didn't hear them.

I hesitate to make this comment, but will anyway although I feel that I am opening up myself for ridicule because I might not explain myself appropriately.

I think there are plenty of different Bible-believing Baptist churches to suit individual peoples needs/wants. Note that I feel that all churches should adhere to sound Biblical teaching. Some clap while they sing wonderful exciting praise songs. Some sing strictly from the hymnal and are more "reverant". Some pastors are very demonstrative when they preach. Some are very docile when they do. People tend to flock to where they are comfortable. I have invited couples to our church where they felt uncomfortable with the drums, hand clapping and hand waving, for example. They didn't come back. I have also invited a few couples that visited and stayed because it was their "cup of tea" because they felt free to worship.

My post is getting too long.