What happened to expository preaching

[gb93433]

He says "One defining characteristic of expository preaching is that it does not dwell on non-biblical examples. It does not focus on stories, jokes and anecdotes. Instead, it seeks to stay focused on the text in question."

Certainly none of the preachers in scripture would meet that criteria. Jesus constantly used pragmatic and real examples. Paul used ideas and real examples. They lived in an agrarian society.

 

[4His_glory]

Certainly none of the preachers in scripture would meet that criteria. Jesus constantly used pragmatic and real examples. Paul used ideas and real examples. They lived in an agrarian society.

But Paul as well as our Lord did not focus on stories. Not to mention they are different than todays preachers. Paul was an apostle and was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, And Christ, well since every word He spoke was God´s word He did not need the authority of the written word that we need as preachers today. His word alone was authoritative.

 

[Todd W. White]

Sister Ann,

I'm still confused, but I think you're saying that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is a one-time even that occurs at the point of salvation (which is what the Bible teaches), and the filling of the Holy Spirit is something that occurs again and again and again as we yield ourselves to Him.

That being the case, I think there's a difference between taking up an offense against another person, which is what I have been talking about, and being righteously indignant against things that God is righteously indignant about.

The woman you dealt with, incidentally, has no concept of what salvation really is, in all liklihood (depending on which version of Pentecostalism you talk to she could have one of at least 4 ideas of how to be saved, none of which are biblical), and that ignorance spills over into her understanding of the work and purpose of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

 

[baptistpreach]

For what its worth, I went to a school that taught exclusively expositional preaching. While I preach that way 90% of the time, and I can go into painstaking detail about what expository preaching really is, I would say that I believe its far healthier to use variety when you preach. There really is a time for a textual or topical sermon.

 

[annsni]

For what its worth, I went to a school that taught exclusively expositional preaching. While I preach that way 90% of the time, and I can go into painstaking detail about what expository preaching really is, I would say that I believe its far healthier to use variety when you preach. There really is a time for a textual or topical sermon.

Absolutely. After 9/11, our pastor stopped his preaching through Revelation to preach on the issue at hand. There have been numerous other times he's done that either in response to an outside event or to an internal calling by the Spirit for him to change the message. It's important to be sensitive to what the Spirit leads you to do instead of being bound into a particular method of messages.

 

[Tom Bryant]

not for nothing, but Chuck Swindoll recently wrote about expository preaching. It might be worth a look at his definition.

 

[gb93433]

I find it interesting to be dogmatic about a particular style when I compare it to Eccl. 12:9, 10, "In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly."

 

[Salamander]

not for nothing, but Chuck Swindoll recently wrote about expository preaching. It might be worth a look at his definition.

Swindol says:

Understanding why God’s Word is important calls for the expositor to be passionate in communicating the truth, so that the one receiving the message is compelled to listen and eager to respond.

Doesn't that "write" the Holy Spirit out of the message and cause total reliability on the charisma of the "passionate expositor"?
I really don't think expository preaching is to rely upon the passion of the speaker but rather the touch of God upon him as the Spirit leads.

I've seen receptence of the truth taken quite easily due to the charisma of the preacher, but I've seen alot more get done when the preacher simply obeyed the Lord and revealed the meaning by applying it to a present condition of his or as the Spirit applied it according to another's.

I've seen preachers stop and snort making exposition about tithing and the Spirit bring conviction and lead sinners to repent and get saved!

Of course the Gospel was presented as it should be in any message, but this reliance upon the passion of the speaker is charismatic.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Doesn't that "write" the Holy Spirit out of the message and cause total reliability on the charisma of the "passionate expositor"?

No, not at all.

 

[Salamander]

No, not at all.

More his charisma than the Spirit. The term "passion" is relative to the compelling the listener. I fail to see where the Spirit is even mentioned.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Swindoll is not saying that above all else be passionate. He is saying that if I really believe the bible to be the Word of God, I am going to be passionate about delivering it. Why pssionate preaching is viewed as charismatic is beyond me. I guess I am supposed to act as if I am bored with the message. :sleep:

No one - certainly not Swindoll - is writing out the Holy Spirit. He is in His Word, which He inspired and moved men to write. The question was about expository preaching not about the Holy Spirit leading the preacher in his preaching.

 

[TomVols]

I have been in IFB churches all of my life. I spent the first 18 years of my life there. I have attended them on many singular occasions since, and I regularly hear IFB preachers. I can count on one hand the expository sermons I've heard from IFB pulpits. I did not start hearing expository preaching til I became a Southern Baptist.

 

[TomVols]

Arguing that Swindoll is mitigating against the Spirit's anointing is practicing eisegesis. So many around here don't practice eisegesis..they PERFECT it :laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Swindoll is not saying that above all else be passionate. He is saying that if I really believe the bible to be the Word of God, I am going to be passionate about delivering it. Why pssionate preaching is viewed as charismatic is beyond me. I guess I am supposed to act as if I am bored with the message. :sleep:

No one - certainly not Swindoll - is writing out the Holy Spirit. He is in His Word, which He inspired and moved men to write. The question was about expository preaching not about the Holy Spirit leading the preacher in his preaching.

The statement indicates the importance of the passion of the preacher. I find this ideal NOWHERE in Scripture, not even by implication.

I DO see where annointing and unction are indicated as well as those also being the preacher being filled with the Spirirt, something Swindol seems to "omit".

Certanly Swindol would not place more emphasis on this than the filling of the Spirirt.:sleep: (tic)

 

[Mexdeaf]

Of course the Gospel was presented as it should be in any message, but this reliance upon the passion of the speaker is charismatic.

My passion for proclaiming God's Word comes from the Holy Spirit. I think you are thinking 'grandstanding' or 'showmanship' when you should be thinking 'passion' as Paul exemplified it-

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

If that isn't passionate preaching, then I don't know what is.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Arguing that Swindoll is mitigating against the Spirit's anointing is practicing eisegesis. So many around here don't practice eisegesis..they PERFECT it :laugh:

Sad thing is most of them don't know what the word means. The biblical definition would be 2 Peter 1:20,21:

Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TomVols]

I DO see where annointing and unction are indicated as well as those also being the preacher being filled with the Spirirt, something Swindol seems to "omit".

Where do you find "unction" in Scripture? Just curious. Thanks! And where do you find the pastor-teacher commanded to be anointed? Again, just curious.

 

[EdSutton]

Where do you find "unction" in Scripture? Just curious. Thanks!

I Jn. 2:20 - (WYC-P, D/R, KJV, MNT, WBT, DBY, AMP); I Jn. 2:27 (AMP)

And where do you find the pastor-teacher commanded to be anointed? Again, just curious.

Now that one will probably prove a mite tougher to come up with. :laugh:

Ed

 

[Pastor Larry]

I have been in IFB churches all of my life. I spent the first 18 years of my life there. I have attended them on many singular occasions since, and I regularly hear IFB preachers. I can count on one hand the expository sermons I've heard from IFB pulpits.

That was not my experience, and I have only been in IFB churches. There is a mix, to be sure.

 

[stilllearning]

The great advantage of expository preaching, is how it discourages us, from making the Bible “agree with us”.

With a topical message, it is easier to pick and choose the Scripture, that will make the point that “you” want to make.

But with expository preaching, we are forced(by the context), to preach “God’s message”.