Unbelievably Un-biblical Sermon in this week's Sword of the Lord

[AmazedbyGrace]

Jeff Fugate approves!

https://twitter.com/drjefffugate/status/544851614570647554

 

[prophet]

Jeff Fugate approves!

https://twitter.com/drjefffugate/status/544851614570647554

Duh!

He knows who has his back.

 

[subllibrm]

When the "point" needs to be made, biblical support takes a back seat.  :-\

 

[Boomer]

When the "point" needs to be made, biblical support takes a back seat.  :-\

Sadly, this seems to be the case. The Sword of the Lord has fallen into disarray since Dr. Rice went home to be with the Lord.

 

[Boomer]

...
Your thoughts, FFF?

Such messages are a classic two fold example of the rot that still prevails in entire segments of our movement. 1) a complete mishandling of Scripture, and 2) an inappropriate exaltation of men. I'm on your side, Boomer, all the way. I am done with shoddy hermeneutics and the cult of personality.

...which doesn't mean I cannot learn from great men in the past. Indeed, I seek to do so conscientiously. But to bring such an emphasis in this way as you have described is inexcusable. And I am weary of it.

The thing that bothers me so much is that it is so obvious. How could Sheldon Smith look at that sermon and think, "This is good, biblical preaching. I'm going to stake my reputation on this and print it"? And then men like Jeff Fugate regurgitate it on Twitter. Cannot the president of a Bible college discern the mangling of Jeremiah 5?

It does not take a scholar to see what Hamblin did to that passage (I'm no scholar!). Anybody with basic reading and comprehension skills could understand what that passage really means! This is what I find so disturbing.

 

[Boomer]

When the "point" needs to be made, biblical support takes a back seat.  :-\

I have formed the habit of reading the whole passage that a preacher is preaching from . . . especially if his text is only one verse. I do this because I have heard too many sermons like this one . . . but seeing this in print just set me off!

I think this is why expository preaching is a good thing for pastors to employ as the main style of preaching. Topical preaching has its place too, but expository preaching safeguards against such agenda-based bologna!

 

[rsc2a]

When I teach topically, I use plenty of passages to support the point.  I am intentional about reading the surrounding verses aloud for those passages , and I would NEVER use a single verse with no context as a teaching point.

 

[bgwilkinson]

When I teach topically, I use plenty of passages to support the point.  I am intentional about reading the surrounding verses aloud for those passages , and I would NEVER use a single verse with no context as a teaching point.

If these preeeechers stopped using cheery-picked out of context verses they would have to stop preeeeeching.

 

[Boomer]

When I teach topically, I use plenty of passages to support the point.  I am intentional about reading the surrounding verses aloud for those passages , and I would NEVER use a single verse with no context as a teaching point.

I think this is what Haddon Robinson wrote about in his book (Biblical Preaching). He called it "Topical Exposition."

 

[prophet]

When I teach topically, I use plenty of passages to support the point.  I am intentional about reading the surrounding verses aloud for those passages , and I would NEVER use a single verse with no context as a teaching point.

One practice is to exhaust the topic (an impossible task, I'm sure.   ) studying out any related topics that appear within the study.

For instance, a Topical Sermon on Missions Giving, can be obtained from an exhaustive study of Gaius, and etc.

 

[Vince Massi]

Praising men so loudly that you drown out their sins has gotten Christians into trouble before.

 

[Escapee]

...
Your thoughts, FFF?

Such messages are a classic two fold example of the rot that still prevails in entire segments of our movement. 1) a complete mishandling of Scripture, and 2) an inappropriate exaltation of men. I'm on your side, Boomer, all the way. I am done with shoddy hermeneutics and the cult of personality.

...which doesn't mean I cannot learn from great men in the past. Indeed, I seek to do so conscientiously. But to bring such an emphasis in this way as you have described is inexcusable. And I am weary of it.

But Tom, your cohort Blowmont is on twitter telling Hamblin what a masterpiece this sermon is and how it has clearly "Pinned back the ears of the liberals"! LOL What a clown he is!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

...
Your thoughts, FFF?

Such messages are a classic two fold example of the rot that still prevails in entire segments of our movement. 1) a complete mishandling of Scripture, and 2) an inappropriate exaltation of men. I'm on your side, Boomer, all the way. I am done with shoddy hermeneutics and the cult of personality.

...which doesn't mean I cannot learn from great men in the past. Indeed, I seek to do so conscientiously. But to bring such an emphasis in this way as you have described is inexcusable. And I am weary of it.

The thing that bothers me so much is that it is so obvious. How could Sheldon Smith look at that sermon and think, "This is good, biblical preaching. I'm going to stake my reputation on this and print it"? And then men like Jeff Fugate regurgitate it on Twitter. Cannot the president of a Bible college discern the mangling of Jeremiah 5?

It does not take a scholar to see what Hamblin did to that passage (I'm no scholar!). Anybody with basic reading and comprehension skills could understand what that passage really means! This is what I find so disturbing.

In short, no.  Fugate doesn't have enough Biblical understanding to see the gross misrepresentation of Scripture's truth.  This guy has zero formal education from anywhere, quotes the American founding fathers more than the Bible, proclaimed to his church that "Yes, Jefferson was a deist.  But that just means he believed in the deity of Christ!"  (I was visiting family there and heard it myself), defended a blackface skit to the media and is so accustomed to trying to find a few words strung together that he can twist to fit his desired topic that he makes Jack Hyles look like an exegetical scholar.

What did you expect?

 

[T-Bone]

...
Your thoughts, FFF?

Such messages are a classic two fold example of the rot that still prevails in entire segments of our movement. 1) a complete mishandling of Scripture, and 2) an inappropriate exaltation of men. I'm on your side, Boomer, all the way. I am done with shoddy hermeneutics and the cult of personality.

...which doesn't mean I cannot learn from great men in the past. Indeed, I seek to do so conscientiously. But to bring such an emphasis in this way as you have described is inexcusable. And I am weary of it.

The thing that bothers me so much is that it is so obvious. How could Sheldon Smith look at that sermon and think, "This is good, biblical preaching. I'm going to stake my reputation on this and print it"? And then men like Jeff Fugate regurgitate it on Twitter. Cannot the president of a Bible college discern the mangling of Jeremiah 5?

It does not take a scholar to see what Hamblin did to that passage (I'm no scholar!). Anybody with basic reading and comprehension skills could understand what that passage really means! This is what I find so disturbing.

In short, no.  Fugate doesn't have enough Biblical understanding to see the gross misrepresentation of Scripture's truth.  This guy has zero formal education from anywhere, quotes the American founding fathers more than the Bible, proclaimed to his church that "Yes, Jefferson was a deist.  But that just means he believed in the deity of Christ!"  (I was visiting family there and heard it myself), defended a blackface skit to the media and is so accustomed to trying to find a few words strung together that he can twist to fit his desired topic that he makes Jack Hyles look like an exegetical scholar.

What did you expect?

Okay...Jefferson being a deist means that he believed in the deity of Jesus....wow and this idiot is leading a church. No wonder the world laughs...we are to be a peculiar people...that doesn't mean we're to be a bunch of idiots! SMH

 

[FSSL]

Hamblin is on the board of the Sword. They had no choice but to publish the article. That is how politics works.

Of course, this assumes that they saw an error with the sermon.

IFB politics, traditionally does not favor true Bible teaching. Every IFB group I have been involved in never favored the truth. It was motivated and retrained by personalities.

 

[Bob H]

If I may digress, the IB's aren't the only ones who preach bad sermons.................



Carry on.

 

[Bob H]

If I may digress, IB aren't the only ones who preach bad sermons.................



Carry on.

If I were still IFB, I would more concerned about the bad teaching in my own "camp" and less so about the Joel Osteens of the world.  If I were still IFB, I'd try to get my own group straightened out and then enable and equip them to educate "outsiders" about the error with Osteen, (pick your favorite demon....) etc.

I'm not "IB" neither but I still stand by what I said. Joel Osteen is a wolf so why bring him up?  I just made a simple observation about preaching. There's a dearth of it in American Christianity. There are plenty of neo's {non-fundy's} if not more so who can't preach a lick.

 

[Bob H]

I don't know. The Op was about the Sword and bad preaching. Hamblin, who ever he is wasn't mentioned in it. I just made the comment that it's in all flavors. I grew up new evangelicalism and it's no better there.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I don't know. The Op was about the Sword and bad preaching. Hamblin, who ever he is wasn't mentioned in it. I just made the comment that it's in all flavors. I grew up new evangelicalism and it's no better there.

It's about Hamblin and his poor preeeeching.
Quote from op
"Beginning on the front page, the sermon by John N. Hamblin entitled "Get You Unto the Great Men" falls so far short of biblical preaching that is not even a sermon by the time it finishes on page 18. Hamblin ignored the context of his text verse so completely that he actually preached the opposite of what it means. What sickens me is that I cannot bring myself to believe that he did this by accident. The true interpretation of the passage is too obvious."

 

[Bob H]

I don't know. The Op was about the Sword and bad preaching. Hamblin, who ever he is wasn't mentioned in it. I just made the comment that it's in all flavors. I grew up new evangelicalism and it's no better there.

Quoting the OP: 
Beginning on the front page, the sermon by John N. Hamblin

My bad.  :-[  Reading should be my friend.