One of the reasons Arnold Murray, Shepherds Chapel, is able to have a 24 hour television program is because he takes the bible chapter by chapter, verse by verse. People are hungry for that type of teaching.
Exactly, that's why I love listening to him teach. Not to mention he has an attitude that is very rare, he seems to genuinely wish the listeners to know that 'Father LOVES you'. I love how he does 'question and answer' as well, and in the intro to that segment he basically says 'don't send us prayer requests, talk to your Father, he's the one who's gonna help you anyway, he wants to hear your voice'.
Of course, like I said, in some areas I think he's out in left field, but hey, it's like eating fish, etc etc.
I, too, get annoyed with preachers who will use a text to begin and then forget they ever used it in the message. As though they just wanted to read something, anything, from the Bible to make it a sermon; when all it really was, was a speech.
I also don't like uzi-style messages. This is where a preacher uses fifty different scriptures and has five different subjects in one message and doesn't hit anything.
Then there are the one's who begin well, but then seem to lose their way and don't have an ending. IMO, the ending of the message is the most important.
A simple formula ministers should use is this:
From the text to the need ~ ~ From the need back to the text
Then there are the one's who begin well, but then seem to lose their way and don't have an ending. IMO, the ending of the message is the most important.
A simple formula ministers should use is this:
From the text to the need ~ ~ From the need back to the text
Must every message close with an 'invitation' to the front? Seems a lot of preachers seem to feel as if without an altar call, their message is incomplete. Yet, I notice in Acts 2 Peter simply finished what he was saying. The altar call (so called) was brought on by the audience demanding 'what shall we do?'
Must every message close with an 'invitation' to the front? Seems a lot of preachers seem to feel as if without an altar call, their message is incomplete. Yet, I notice in Acts 2 Peter simply finished what he was saying. The altar call (so called) was brought on by the audience demanding 'what shall we do?'
Thoughts?
I don't believe every message must close with an invitation to the front, so to speak. But every message should have some kind of appeal or ending. Every message in the Bible had the message and then a response.
From the priests or prophets in the OT who would speak to the people and call them to repentance, to Peter standing on the Day of Pentecost.
You don't have to end the message asking, pleading, or demanding people come forward to the front for an altar call. But 1) the ending of the message needs to bring the subject together and have an actual ending; and 2) you should always allow for the response to the message. Otherwise the minister becomes nothing more than a public speaker who simply orates his subject and dismisses the crowd.
In Acts 2, Peter gave the message, then there was the response. What would have happened if Peter simply gave his message, then said a closing prayer and bid them all good day?
IMO, if the message is really from God, you won't have to ask for a response; God will do the work and the people will respond through the move of the Holy Ghost.
Exactly, that's why I love listening to him teach. Not to mention he has an attitude that is very rare, he seems to genuinely wish the listeners to know that 'Father LOVES you'. I love how he does 'question and answer' as well, and in the intro to that segment he basically says 'don't send us prayer requests, talk to your Father, he's the one who's gonna help you anyway, he wants to hear your voice'.
Of course, like I said, in some areas I think he's out in left field, but hey, it's like eating fish, etc etc.
Yep, I agree. Even on the left field stuff he gives food for thought which causes one do examine scripture to support or reject his view on the belief though. For example, on his three earth age or serpent seed views he doesn't just read a scripture and build a doctrine on it, he gives several passages which in his opinion supports those views.....not that I agree or disagree with him on those particular beliefs.
preachers that cannot walk thru scripture and show its relevence to today are not worth thier salt.
Having said that, I have preached from a few passages and included a sermon dealing with modern life issues that also include other commentary. balance is key.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Must every message close with an 'invitation' to the front? Seems a lot of preachers seem to feel as if without an altar call, their message is incomplete. Yet, I notice in Acts 2 Peter simply finished what he was saying. The altar call (so called) was brought on by the audience demanding 'what shall we do?'
Thoughts?
i dont think all sermons need to end in an alter call. Not all of mine do.
but if we arent at church for the purpose of a God-incounter, then im not sure what we are there for?
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
We visited a Calvary Chapel, and they teach through the Bible also, and every Calvary Chapel is on the same schedule of scripture teaching. I like their approach where the pastor takes the chapter, and teaches exegetically from it, and can add their own anecdotes and current events to make it relevant to the day, and most always they end with a call for repentance, and a re-comittment of your personal relationship with the Lord.
We currently are having "church" in our home with a group of people, and our approach is to take a chapter or two, and study through it, with discussion, thoughts, and references to other scriptures as well. It works very well for us, and it is amazing what our teenagers have brought up in the discussion, and how much they have learned being able to ask questions, and think about what we are reading. It has been a wonderful thing.
Most people want to be entertained, which is why the Bible reading is decreasing in churches. People want to laugh, or cry about a good story, but they really don't want to be challenged or changed, just entertained. Preachers have learned that to keep people coming back, they've got to tickle their ears with stories, anecdotes, and so on.
However, to find a group of people who don't want to be entertained, but who want to grow spiritually and have greater depth in their lives, they will seek after someone who can teach from the Word of God, and challenge them... and not be just another form of entertainment... that is tough, and hard to find in mainstream, mega church atmospheres, in my opinion.... which is why we have been blessed to grow much deeper in our relationship with the Lord as we meet in a home group.
Never read about an altar call in the Bible. We probably got the altar call from the 1800s Wesleyan Methodists' Great Awakening revivals. Is an altar call necessary, maybe not, but it could HELP a person in their spiritual walk. Just don't go trying to drag someone to the altar. That makes me sick and maaaaad.
So, having said that, if it's decent and in order, have at it.
jmho
__________________
.
Do Not Argue With Idiots, they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
.
I, too, get annoyed with preachers who will use a text to begin and then forget they ever used it in the message. As though they just wanted to read something, anything, from the Bible to make it a sermon; when all it really was, was a speech.
I also don't like uzi-style messages. This is where a preacher uses fifty different scriptures and has five different subjects in one message and doesn't hit anything.
Then there are the one's who begin well, but then seem to lose their way and don't have an ending. IMO, the ending of the message is the most important.
A simple formula ministers should use is this:
From the text to the need ~ ~ From the need back to the text
How about the preacher that never quotes a verse at all?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Linear Mode
