Thanks for the post. I have found great benefit in my own teaching and preaching, listening to sermons/podcasts and written sermons. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Regards,
Erol

What’s up with the Barth quote on the last post and Bultmann on this one? Is there some sort of neo-orthodox transition going on here?

That is the answer I expected and one with which I agree. When I refer to one’s own work, I was really thinking of the textual examination and wrestling you referred to in your initial post.

Thanks for the post.

Matt

I’m not sure. I listen to and read so much, that it would not be fair to say that a lot is “my own” work. But, if you mean, “How much of the sermon structure and wording is my own, I would say most of it. It would be a false dichotomy to say that knowledge is somehow both mediate and immediate. All knowledge is mediate. Certainly the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is necessary in all this. But even that is mediated through the text of Scripture. We never come to a text as a blank slate. We come with all that we have learned before, heard in sermons, and read on our own. We come with biases and convictions. This is inescapable. Paul told Timothy to commit biblical truth to other faithful men that they may in turn teach others. I am wary when men say that they want to “do their own work,” and mean by that statement “I personally came to the conclusions I came to without consulting other works.” This is ridiculous. Why would I not want to learn as much as I can about every passage of Scripture, from everyone who has something to contribute. I am constantly building on the leads that I get from other men. But, if you mean, how much of my work is diligent, prayerful, personal wrestling with the text, I agree that this is necessary. I am doing that from the moment I start sermon prep until I get in the pulpit. I’m meditating on the text, context and audience all throughout the week. But I do not categorize my sermon preparation as some men do. I do not have a structured “this then this” mentality. The Bible does not bind my conscience to that sort of program, and I do not believe we should bind others to it either. I generally consult exegetical commentaries first, however, to make sure I have exegeting the passage appropriately. Even if a man said he wanted to do exegesis on his own without commentaries, he is still forced to use other men’s work with a lexicon. I study, read works on, listen to sermons on, pray through and meditate on a passage the entire week until I preach. I do my own outline, but sometimes find one in someone else’s work that is by far the best. I have even used the headings from the New King James Bible before as the sermon points. Why reinvent the wheel, if it is a beautiful wheel?

Thanks for this; you are right of course that there are many sources both current and historic, verbal and written which are open to ministers of the gospel and students.

I’m one who doesn’t read or listen enough to other men, I want to dig into the text on my own and do the wrestling that you talked about. I know you like to do your own work also – let me ask you this: what percentage of a sermon is work that you have done yourself. I’m always a bit disappointed when a man tells me that most of the work is not his own.

Blessings brother

Matt

I am not sure that Ferguson misses the point you have made. It seems that he is making a suplimentary point. I did only quote a portion of the section in the book. He continues to tie the context in, specifically as it relates to the audience to whom the parables were spoken. This enhances the point about progressive development in the triplet.

Good thoughts in this post.

Thanks for the comment. I think that the issues you have raised are applicable to some extent, but the substance of Vos’ quote centers on the precise relationship between the prelapsarian covenant and the Law in the Mosaic Covenant–not between the Old and the New Covenant. I will say, however, that the Old Covenant (as mentioned in Hebrews and Galatians), is not the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Mosaic. There is clearly a Law-Gospel distinction outlined in Galatians 3 and 4. I have never heard a man who rejects any form of republication adequately explain how Paul contrasts “Two Covenants” in Galatians 4. He does not simply contrast a misperseption of the Law, though that is clearly in view in Galatians. He is contrasting Two Covenants (i.e. Abrahamic/New and Mosaic).

It is such a comfort to know the lengths that Jesus went to for my soul. It helps me to persevere to the end when I will experience joy unspeakable in his presence.

At the same time, recognizing common grace, we know that nonChristian brilliance in general revelation is not all that rare. The Lord is generous.

Anyway, here’s a correction on Sowell: http://mises.org/daily/3572