The Pastor and his Bible

Good point. Spurgeon was a master at using vocal tools.

Jerry Vines was a wizard at using PP. But yet, MacArthur eschews it. And both are great preachers. So you can be "great" with or without it, lest any of us should boast that we do or don't use it.

 

Wow...come on, folks: Let's be thankful that the Word is being preached. Maybe where we cast, and how we cast, is different...but as long as the seed is The Seed, God can make it grow.

And thusly, we can avoid denigrating folks that do it differently.

Mark 9:37-40--

 

Spurgeon was a master of taking texts out of context and being highly inconsistent.

 

Dr. David Allen once preached on Expository Preaching at the pastors conference in Jacksonville. It was in that sermon he said "If you can't preach without all those helps, you will never be able to preach with them."

 

I belong to a small church which does not have the benefit of a projection screen or projector, but to me, it's another tool that can be used to proclaim God's word.
How many people who open their Bibles to a passage pointed out by the preacher actually READ it, & the surrounding passages at that time? Most are focusing upon what the preacher is saying, and if HE doesn't read the passage aloud, mosta the congregation won't read it, either.
When a screen is used, and is not illuminated except when the preacher is making a point from it, it draws attention to itself, & mosta the congregation will read it. The main drawback is that the passages surrounding the one in focus aren't immediately available.
Just my opinion.

 

I have also never seen in the NT where preachers told the congregation to turn to any passage in the Bible while they were preaching.... because... it would have been impossible to do this as the average Christian didn't have a Bible readily accessible during a church service until after the printing press was invented.

 

Only about two percent of the people could even read. I am unable to think of a case where Jesus in ministry told someone to read in their Bible in reaching them.

 

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I am NOT against preachers telling people to turn to a passage, or putting it on a screen... but I just want to point out that the tradition of people reading ALONG with the preacher is a relatively new custom when looked at through the lens of church history. BE CAREFUL in making it a benchmark for Christianity, or making it an issue that defines good preachers vs. bad preachers. Just because a preacher doesn't tell someone to turn to a scripture, doesn't mean he is a bad preacher...

Using that a criteria would make Paul and Jesus bad preachers.. and we KNOW that ain't true! (using my Hillbilly Elizabethan Language)

 

Actually, in the KJV, it would be verily, verily, we knoweth that ain'teth true!

 

I may regret asking this, but explain.

:thumbs:

 

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Charles Spurgeon, Salvation By Knowing the Truth

:thumbs:

 

I wonder what a preacher 100 years from now will say about the preaching today.

 

Really? Jesus used a fig tree, a child, and various other object lessons to illustrate his points. He wrote in the sand with the adulterous woman. He healed the blind to illustrate spiritual blindness.

This seems like a little more than 'just preaching.' He was the Master Teacher, and thus we do well to study his preaching methods.

 

RAdam, if you don't won't to use it that's fine but be careful of criticizing others who do. It makes you appear to be good at pointing out the gimmicks in others preaching while probably missing out on the beams poking out of your own eye. What you call a gimmick is merely another tool. Using a power point to project God's word on a screen is far from putting on a dog and pony show to gather a crowd and keep their attention.

 

Spurgeon would take a text whose wording suited what he wanted to preach on regardless of the context that text was located in.

Concerning his inconsistency, he got it honestly from following Fuller too closely. Fuller was the most inconsistent preacher I've ever read that called himself a baptist.

 

There's a large difference between using imagery and illustrations to make a point and using a gimmick like a fill in the blank sermon to "help people remember." If people can't remember a sermon without having to fill in the blanks it is really sad. I, and other people I know, can remember sermons preached to us when we were kids. The preacher didn't use a single gimmick. Rather, the Holy Ghost blessed him and blessed us. You can do whatever you want, but I'd rather just simply rely on the Holy Ghost.

 

What is your definition of a gimmick? It's seems a bit odd, but perhaps you are using differently than everyone else in the English speaking world.

Where is the biblical distinction between the Holy Spirit (he's not a ghost, please don't call him that; that was a most unfortunate translation) and these "gimmicks"? Again, not being sure how you are using it, perhaps you have carved out a very narrow place here where your argument makes sense.

 

A gimmick is using a fill in the blank sermon to help the congregation remember what the preacher said. The idea is this will make people pay attention and will help them remember. It is a gimmick. One of the definitions of a gimmick is a trick or device used to attract business or attention. Here the gimmick of a fill in the blank sermon is used to attract the attention of the congregation. I'd rather just preach God's word and rely on the Holy Ghost to hold the attention of the congregation and apply the preached word to their hearts and minds.

The problem with using a gimmick like this is that it is not a teaching tool like a sermon illustration or imagery used to explain complex theological topics. It is something designed to draw and hold attention. It is totally unnecessary and adds nothing to the sermon.

 

That's an example of a gimmick, not a definition. I asked for the latter.

Okay, that's a little better.

So what is wrong with gaining attention to the Word of God?

So on what biblical basis would you suggest that the Holy Spirit (again, please do not refer to him as a ghost) does not hold the attention and apply the preached through through means of an outline?

Is it a gimmick when the preacher has an outline and the people don't fill it in? It is a gimmick when a book has chapter titles to help hold attention and develop a thought? These things are really no different than a fill in the blank outline (which I rarely if ever use).

Here is you are just incorrect. It is a teaching tool. It is just one that you don't like. And it is one that is different than an illustration or imagery. But I have yet to see an argument why it is wrong to use. Do you use it when teaching a class?

Here again, I think you are just incorrect. It is usually designed to help the listener follow the flow of thought.

On what basis do you declare it unnecessary?

 

What's wrong with using a gimmick to bring attention to the gospel? Everything. It shows a lack of reliance on the Holy Ghost. Again, when do you see an apostle doing something like this? They had a harder time than us because they didn't live in a world where Jesus had been preached abroad. Still, they relied totally on the Spirit, and the Spirit blessed. They relied on Him to guide them as to where to preach, as to what to preach, and they relied on Him to bless their preaching. They didn't rely partially on the Spirit and partially on what man had cooked up in his own head. They relied totally on the Spirit of God.

The gospel doesn't need a gimmick to draw attention. The preaching of the gospel is the power of God! Do you really understand that? It is the power of God, the God of Heaven, the Creator God! To say it needs something else is just plain wrong and disrespectful to how the bible describes preaching. The apostles just simply preached the gospel and God blessed. God held the attention of the congregation, applied it to their hearts and minds, and blessed them to understand and believe. That's because preaching is the power of God! It is done with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven! To say we need something man created to get people's attention and hold it is just plain wrong. We need nothing else than God blessed preaching. God blessed preaching taught me much when I was a child, and all throughout my life. God has seen fit to bless me, though I am an unprofitable servant, to teach others also with nothing more than simple preaching of His word. Gimmicks aren't needed and shouldn't be used.