What is the purpose of preaching?

Calv1: That is not what a Calvinist would say. We recognize that God enacts not just the ends, but the means, and He uses us as the means to bring His word to the lost sheep.

We are to preach to all, not knowing who is elect.

 

Reply to Cav1,

That may not be what all Calvinists say, but several posters on this thread did say it, so your assertion seems baseless.

Yes, and I do not dispute that Calvinists "recognize that God enacts not just the ends, but the means, and He uses us as the means to bring His word to the lost sheep." Calvinism says God predestines all things, yet denies that God is the author of sin. A logical impossibility.

The reason Calvinists say the purpose of preaching is to glorify God, is that they believe preaching does not contribute to the salvation of anyone, God does it all. So they must find another purpose, one that differs from the one given in scripture.

Take an aborted elect baby, goes to heaven, yet never heard anyone preach, according to Calvinism.

 

Please cite a Calvinist who does not believe in the primacy of preaching. I'm sure you can find some knucklehead out there...but I'm talking about substance here.

 

I just thought of something.
Calvinists often get lumped in with Hyper-Cals as denying the necessity of preaching. Every Cal I know holds that God says through the foolishness of preaching.

The Hypers hold that God can save his elect independently of the gospel.

Now, here's the irony. Some non-Cals also hold that God saves his elect independently of the gospel. I'm referring to infants and children who die.

Actually, I agree. And that means I disagree with some of my Cal brothers and sisters, who hold that elect children and infants are safe, but the non-elect ones are not--or they just don't know for certain. I believe all such children are safe.

Now, I get upset when I see Calvinism mis-characterized by those who know better. So I don't want to do the same to non-Cals. If I'm wrong about the children and infants, I welcome correction.

 

If preaching is unnecessary to save elect babies, why is preaching necessary to save an elect person born into a remote tribe with an isolated language that never hears the gospel. These too would be saved if they were elect, according to Calvinism without preaching. So Calvinism might claim the primacy of preaching, but what do they mean when they use the word "primacy?" Not that it is necessary for salvation. Perhaps the most important form of worship to bring glory to God? Who knew?

 

I understand that, however people from differing soteriological viewpoints believe differently about the purpose of preaching. Did you think that difference wouldn't be brought up when you asked the question considering you have the different perspectives represented here?

 

I believe pinoybaptist is one of them.

Do you not know this is a staple of hyper-calvinism? Are you not familiar with duty faith? Just google it.

 

Preaching as opposed to teaching, or do you link them together. When I bring a sermon that calls people to make decisions for God or to stir them to service that is preaching. When I do as God called me to teach the flock that is done to train them in the word of God. One is a call to decision and service, the other is to train them in the woed and doctrine, which gift does one have? I see preaching as that of an evangelist, pastor-teacher with an emphasis on teaching is the other but he can do both, I have the gift of Pastor-Teacher and I love to teach point by point, verse by verse book by book, or on a specific topic. Preaching is a specific message with points to stir and move folks. So which are you refering too?

 

I'm not sure cal's get lumped in with hyper-cals...I think it is more accurately stated it is the logical conclusion to true calvinism.

Also spiritually dead sinners need saving. You and I don't believe infants are guilty of sinning, hence they are not spiritually dead. Of course they are still under the curse and need redemption from that, and Christ's death, burial and resurrection defeated all of the curse and all death, physical and spiritual.

 

I understand what you are saying, but even our teaching must have some implications for how we live.

My preaching is verse by verse through a book, which we do on Sunday mornings and most Sunday nights. My teaching is verse by verse thru a book which is on the remaiinder of Sunday nights and all Wednesdays. But I am still trying to take any teaching or preaching and apply it to lives. Even if we are studying a passage about an attribute of God that changes the way we worship.

I understand that there is a difference between teaching and preaching but I am not sure it can be divided quite that clearly.

 

Actually, I think we're confusing terms here. Hyper-Calvinists are likely to refuse the role of preaching as instrumental means. If that's what you mean by primacy (and it looks like you do) then you'd have a slight bit of ground to stand on. But that's not what primacy means. The primacy of preaching is the centraility of the pulpit in worship first, then the means of announcing to the elect, the HC would say, of the gospel that they will respond to eventually.

Gill was hyper, yet he upheld primacy. There are others. No offense to Pinoy, but I wasn't asking for a blogger/poster. I was looking for someone of some gravitas theologically. (again, no offense Pinoy).

I think this shows you have no or very little idea what Calvinism teaches. You've conflated Amaryldianism with Hyper and everything in between at times. I'd recommend some reading up on it so you can better understand the differences. The differences are as stark as night and day. I say that in all humility. It always helps to understand what you oppose, so I encourage you to read up on it.

And one final note: people don't become spiritually dead because they sin. We sin because we are spiritually dead. This is acknowledged by folks who are even less than Amaryldian (Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, etc.)

 

Not sure why primacy was introduced to this discussion...

I believe I have a strong grasp on the doctrine and stand by my logical conclusion. More than one person has stated salvation is monergistic yet reprobation is not. That is using logical gymnastics as if God decrees, ordains and desire ALL things you cannot arrive anywhere but the hyper shore.

Lets see how yourunderstanding of sin breaks down when you substitute actuals sins for the blanket statement...

I'm not a murderer because I mudered, I murder because I'm a murderer.
I'm not a child molester because I molest children, I molest children because I'm a child molester.

This understanding of guilt being placed on us from someone else removes any kind of personal accountability. I'll stick with Paul telling me that I was dead in my trespasses and sins that I used to walk in.

 

Biblical preaching is not the authoritarian sermonizing we have today. Phillip preached the gospel to the eunuch. You really think he got up on a stump & preached a sermon to him? It was a one-on-one discussion of who Christ is. Men who say they are called to preach but only "preach" in a church are either not called or deceived. Believers need small group teaching by those who have the gift of teaching where questions can be asked, answered, & researched. A one-size-fits-all sermon cannot meet the spiritual growth needs of an entire congregation. It is the same a gathering kindergarten thru twelfth grade students into one room & teaching them all the same thing. It is a failed teaching model that does not work.

 

Maybe you should do more research on this instead of misapplying a selected passage of scripture you can twist into your won context. I would be interested to see your evidence that the sound biblical preaching we see in churches is a failed teaching model. My church members would find it difficult to agree with you.

 

Necessity and primacy are more kin than instrumentality.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Being informed rightly is not a bad thing.

Actually, you make my point.

No, it doesn't. I could use several examples, but I choose not to.

But to hear you tell it, you aren't dead. You're just kinda asleep. Oh well, it's talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Again, I hate that you refuse to learn more about a subject. I'm going to give you the last word here. I have other more pressing things to do than be on this merry go round! :thumbs:

God bless you, Webdog. Grace and peace to you and yours.

 

Many of these synergists are fine, honest people, they simply lack KNOWLEDGE. I've seen it all over this forum, I mean my 10 year old son understands the Arminian/Calvinism debate better than most here who are so dogmatic about what they do not know.

I would recommend to anyone they pick up Wayne Grudem or Louis Berkoff "Systematic Theology", or read some AW Pink. Grudem's go a pretty cool CD for the computer.

I mean I actually heard someone say this is not an important issue. In my opinion it is one of the single most important issues in Theology, for it affects all Theology, your worship, your walk, how you understand the bible in all aspects.

I fought the doctrines of grace like no man, yet had to let go of my traditions, shut up, and let God speak.

 

Don't demean others.

Calv1, brother, I'm glad you found your way to this board, but these types of patronizing and purposefully demeaning remarks don't reflect well upon your character or willingness to engage in an honest exchange of ideas and points of contention. Please refrain from talking about individuals and instead discuss the subject matter at hand. If you really are more knowledgeable and intelligent it will be evident by your arguments, not by your tearing down the brethren.

 

I had the last word with my last reply...because yours lacked anything of substance.

Blessings to you as well.