Current Non-Cal Expository Pastors

Define Calvinistic. Your standard Dallas Theological Seminary guy (Swindol, et. al,) is a four-point Amyraldian Calvinist, as Lewis Sperry Chafer was, as I am.

Outsisde the SBC fight of hard line 5 vs hard line half-a-pointers, there is a whole world out there (including a lot of Baptists--GARB, etc.) who would cry for a pox on both houses.

 

James Merritt would qualify, I would think. http://www.touchinglives.org/

Danny Akin (pres of SEBTS) would too. www.sebts.edu

Jack Graham, Prestonwood Baptist http://www.jackgraham.org/

Michael Yousseff? Don't have a link, but his program is called "Leading the Way"

If you have NRB channel, you should have a plethora of these guys.

 

Hayes Wicker in Naples, FL.

I know there must be some point to non-cals who are expository, but I don't determine Biblical truth by how the adherents to that idea preach.

 

So, let me get this straight, Rippon. For calvinists, it does not matter whether a man if famous or not, it only matters that he is expositional. But for non-calvinists, you are not satisfied with a list of expositors, they have to be well-known. If it does not matter to you whether calvinists are well-known or not, only that they are expositional, why is it important to you whether non-calvinist expositors are well-known or not? If God is pleased with them then they are well-known to Him and that's all that matters.

 

:thumbs:

 

Am I missing something? Is Rippon saying the non-Cals have to be well known to be (1) approved by God or (2) Expositional?

 

Well....as an expositor and Calvinist, the above blanket statement gives me a lapse or two, having met some unfortunate professing reformed folks who are not expository. But if you want to say on balance there seems to be more exposition from Reformed pulpits than those that aren't, I'd be arm in arm with you.

 

TomVols asked:

Yeah, this thread is kindof a continuation of a previous thread entitled "Calvinism in Fundamentalist Circles". In that thread Rippon argued like a kindergartener and I, still in need of growth in my own sanctification, responded in kind. Finally stopped participating in that thread and I would have been better off if I'd stayed out of this one.

Rippon said

Yes, I think I know what I should do.

 

How many expository sermons did Jesus preach? Why has this become the litmus test of holiness today?

 

James Knox
http://www.jamesknox.com/

 

Ezra in the OT (Neh 8), Jesus in the NT (Lk 4:16-21), et.al., we see exposition modeled. I believe exposition, that is, teaching the Bible by actually teaching the Bible, is to be preferred over so much pulpit twaddle today. I'd rather hear Biblical teaching on marriage as an expositor works through 1 Cor, Song of Solomon, or an expository series on marriage than random shotgun blast points on marriage that may or may not be Biblically rooted. Every day on TV you hear sermons preached the previous Sunday that are true as far as it goes, but not Biblical. If the Bible is used at all, it's used in the way you could use Aesop's Fables.

Heard Ed Young of Fellowship church on TV a week or so ago. Preached on being fashionably Christian. The Christian shouldn't be a suit and tie Christian (only on Sunday), a shorts and tank top Christian (casual, uncommitted) but should be fully devoted to Christ. Is he right? Sure. Is he Biblical? Not even in the same area code. Didn't use one text...not one. I think this is what we are wanting to avoid.

Rick Warren is right here (I don't say that often). Exposition can be verse-by-verse (lectio continua) or can be verse-with-verse (topical exposition). I prefer the former to the latter, but the latter need not cause an allergy like some believe

Back to your question. It's not about holiness as such. It's about preachers being faithful to the text. What other kind of true preaching exists?

 

Where are we told that the gathering of the saints is to include expository preaching? To answer your question, there are many kinds. Topical is my preference as it applies to day to day life and is refreshing and can still remain faithful to the texts. Each believer should be doing their own expository Bible study as it is on a daily basis. Having said that I think preaching can be both as well. I just think the "we are picking a book of the Bible and going through it in 24 months" approach to not be the best method, but coincidentally is looked upon as the best approach.

 

I think we see it modeled. Does everything have to be spelled out? :laugh: And where are we told that the gathering of saints is to include topical preaching

When you say there are many kinds of true preaching, I wonder if you really mean there are really many kinds of expository preaching. Sometimes our caricatures do us more harm than good.

The major problem with this type is that it's up to the whims and fancies of the preacher, and the application can lose Biblical moorings. Whereas exposition is always practical as the Bible always touches human needs, is always refreshing, and demands textual fideltiy. Again, I have no problem with verse-with-verse exposition, but "5 Secrets to a happy marriage" preaching can miss the mark. Dr Phil can do that. He can't exposit Scripture, and when that occurs, my marriage is happier and holier

I believe we should teach the Bible by teaching the Bible. It forces us to meet God on His terms, not meet the people on ours. It could very well be you've been exposed to some lousy preachers. I'd argue they aren't expositors. True expositors are never boring because the Bible isn't boring. Then again, that's my conviction and some see the Bible as less than what it truly is.

 

One important thing to note:

Preaching through a book of the Bible isn't necessarily expository preaching.

One can quite easily read a text then impose inaccurate thoughts upon it.

 

I think Adrian Rogers would have identified himself as "non-Calvinistic." His sermons are still available.