Let's let's do our midterm review questions. Is there only one proper way to outline a passage for a sermon? Is there only one proper way? We say no. Now the exegetical outline may be very similar, but what will vary greatly? The homological outline may vary greatly. And Part of the reason for that, it's not in your notes here, but you'll recognize that I think if as I say it, an expositor is bound to represent the truth of the text, but not the what? The pattern of the text. So you are bound to present the truth of the text as an expositor, but not necessarily the pattern of the text. What governs how a sermon then should be outlined? I'm looking for words like purpose and Fcf. So if there's not one right way to use that raw material out of the exegetical outline and your other study, what does govern the outline, the purpose, the Fcf? Three basic types of outlines. Can you remember some of these? Three basic types of outlines. What's the most common? Logical, what else? Sequential or chronological and picturesque or imagistic. So logical, sequential, picturesque. What are the qualities of good, homological outlines? There's actually a couple of ways you could go on this. One would be to list those things like unity, brevity, parallelism, proportion, progression, that's one way of going. Another is remember form the Lillicrostic, FORM. They should have form, faithful to the text, obvious from the text, relevant to a following mission focus and moving to a climax. So those just summary thoughts from your last lecture. As you are thinking about what's coming up, let me remind you that at the end of today's lecture, there is an assignment and the assignment is to be preparing an outline for next time. And the outline is based on specific scripture text to which you're being assigned. And up here again is the current alpha list of what text are yours to go with. So at the end of the lecture, there is an old list. It's just kind of a pattern I work off of, but this is the actual list for the semester. So wherever your name falls next to that text, that's what you'll be working on this semester. And again, if you're not proceeding in the homolytic sequence, you're the middle text. Even if your alpha name doesn't fall on that particular place. If you're only in this course in the homolytic's curriculum, then you're working on the middle text. And as we get to the end of the hour, we will tell you the specifics and it will be not an exogetical, it will be a homolytic outline. For next time, you'll be preparing proposition and main points, not subpoints, not illustrations, not applications, just proposition and main points for next time, based on those texts, and we'll talk about it at the end of the hour. What we are going to be talking about is, again, basic principles of outlining, but moving to greater particulars. And I want to kind of prepare this a little bit by a hard experience that some of you in this room are aware of. There's a very dear friend of mine and a friend of the seminary who we are not sure yet, he has been missing for a couple of days now, and he has probably taken his own life. And he's a pastor, and a pastor to some people, actually quite a few people who go to the seminary. And as I spoke to his wife yesterday, you think what great truths can you communicate in such a time. And in my mind, the great truths are the simple ones. He is the good shepherd, and I'll ask him now to carry you close to his arms and close to his heart. You know, we're going to do a lot of technical things here the next few times, but I don't want the technical things to steal your sight of what we're trying to accomplish. We're just trying to make God's word clear to God's people. And there are some technical things about communication that we need to learn to do that well, but don't lose sight of the go. We're not trying to make things more complex. We are trying to make the word of God and all of his eternal truths crystal clear for his people. Let's pray the Lord would enable us to do that. Father, we will deal with matters to us in this class this day that are highly technical, and in some ways, as we are gaining facility in them, even frustrating to us. But the goal is great, and the goal is that the hope that is in your word that you have transferred through the ages would be proclaimed to your people with boldness and compassion and great clarity, for there will be moments in life that we need it very, very clear to us. Grant us, therefore, as we do what we confess are some rather mundane tasks this day, sight of the goal, your people understanding your word. Give us your blessing, we pray, for the sake of your people and the message of your Son, we pray in His name. Amen. Our goal for today, as you see it, is to understand the basic features and construction of good propositions and main points. If you think of this class in large scope, what we've done is we've talked about the nature of the word of God in general, we've talked about the nature of the servants of God, we've talked about the nature of text, what we're trying to communicate out of them, and now we're moving right into what is the nature of that sermon itself, and we're going to look at some of the skeleton. So we're going to come right in and do that hard work of anatomy and begin to think particularly for formal messages. Now we won't always preach formal messages, but particularly for the most formal classical messages, what do those outlines look like. Now I say that because I will readily confess to you, I do not always preach this way, this is the most classical method and we are learning taxonomy, we are learning very basic things that we will now use in much greater ways and more facile ways in the future, but we're going to walk down this path for a while and recognize it is playing the scales before we get to jazz. So this is learning the scales and I want to freely confess that to you, but once we have this terminology and these principles down, we can do lots of different things. So that's the goal, and as we think about it, recognize after the overview, we are now zeroing in on the detailed development of specific components. First is, what's a proposition? Now the traditional definition, this is as old as John brought us, the traditional definition of what an outline is, excuse me, a proposition is, is this. A statement of the subject as the preacher proposes to develop it. So pretty basic, right? Your English teacher would call it the theme statement, but this is for a sermon, a statement of the subject as the preacher proposes to develop it. Now that is now over 150 years old, so let's talk about some additional developments in definition. We will add to that traditional definition some distinctions for what an expository message is, particularly framed according to classical guidelines. Number one, a proposition is also a theme statement indicating how an FcF will be addressed in the message. So it's not just a statement of the subject, it's a statement of the subject addressed to the fallen condition focus. What's the burden of the message? What's wrong that you will be addressing? So the theme is addressed to that problem as it were that this text will be speaking to. Number two, a proposition is a statement of the main thing the message is about, which is broad enough to cover the content of all the main points and which is proven or developed by each of the points. Now if you can just draw on your notes that stool that I brought in earlier in the semester, that's the idea, right? The proposition is the seat. The proposition has to be broad enough to cover all the legs or the main points, but it also has to be supported by those specific main points. So the proposition is to be supported by, cover and be supported by each of the main points. The main points shouldn't be about something else. They are about this very specific proposition. Three, a proposition is a summary of the introduction. It is a summary of the introduction and an indication of what the rest of the message will be about. Thus the proposition points both forward and backward. You can kind of think of it in the hourglass mode here that what a proposition is, it's a summary of the intro. So in that way it's kind of pointing back. The introduction has been saying here's what I'm going to be talking about, here's the problem, here's how this text addresses it. So the proposition summarizes what the intro has been about, but it is automatically signaling what the rest of the message is going to be about. So a proposition is both a summary of the introduction and a preparation for the rest of the message. A key idea to which we will return many times in the semester is this the introduction prepares for the proposition in two major ways in concept and terminology. The introduction should prepare for the proposition in concept and terminology. On our hourglass again, if the proposition right here kind of at the neck of the sermon, if the proposition is a summary of the intro, it is certainly going to use the concepts of the introduction. The introduction should be getting us ready for what's the subject of the sermon. But again we are in an oral medium. People are listening for what we're saying, and we are giving them cues not just conceptually, but even in the terms that we use in the introduction. So if in my introduction I'm talking about God is a friend to centers, and in my proposition is going to be God is kind to all people. You may think, well, that's the same subject. It's different terms. The ear is now confused. So unlike your English teacher who would say, use different words, your homolytics instructor says, use the same words. We're preparing the ear as well as the mind for what's going to follow. So the introduction is preparing for the proposition in concept and terminology. So to refine our definition at the bottom of your page there, a proposition is this. Going back to the classical, a proposition is a statement of the subject as the preacher proposes to develop it. That's still true. Proposition is a statement of the subject as the preacher proposes to develop it in light of an FCF. In light of an FCF, with the concepts and terms of the introduction. A proposition is a statement of the subject as the preacher proposes to develop it, the classical definition. With this, in the light of an FCF, in the light of an FCF, and with the concepts and terms of the introduction. Now that's the general definition. So let's begin to talk about the marks of such propositions, again in the most formal structure. So in classical terms, in your readings you read, I think, with a little bit of tongue and cheek from me, the statement from Henry Jewett. And here's the one that virtually every homolytics book has quoted for the last half century. Over and over again in the statement of what that proposition is, Jewett says, I do not think any sermon should be preached or written until that proposition has emerged clear and lucid as a cloudless moon. Well, it's good graphic language. I mean, it should just shine there and in the darkness of the text, you know, just to say, here's what this message is about as clear as a cloudless moon. Now, where we can begin to think about what that proposition includes is what we know the rest of the sermon will be about. Remember, we set a sermon is not just what is true. Sermon is what is true and what to do about it. What is true and what's not just what to do, that's just kind of preacher arrogance. Do this, do this, do this. Nor is it just what is true. That's preacher abstraction. This is true. It's these two things together. What is true and what to do about it? So if the proposition is about all of those things, you might easily guess that it's going to be wed a principle and application or exhortation. In your notes there, a proposition is a wedding of a principle and exhortation, also known as the application. Now, again, just to think if that means it's what is true, the principle, and it is wed to what to do, that is the exhortation or application. Right under that little sentence of fill in there, you can put the formal way that homileticians say it and it's this. A proposition is a universal truth in a hortatory mode, a universal truth in a hortatory mode. Something that's universally true and I can exhort you on the basis of it. Universal truth in a hortatory mode. Now, because it has those two elements, what is true and what to do, principle and application. We recognize this. A proposition is not principle alone, like Jesus is the only hope of salvation. Good statement, all true, not a proposition because what is it lacking? It's lacking the application. It is just at that point, principle. It neither is it just application alone. We should preach Christ at every opportunity. True, great application, but the truth for it has not been established. So, a proposition is principle wed to application, like this. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Him or Christ at every opportunity. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ at every opportunity. There are two basic forms of doing this, and it's just language to get in front of you now. I confess this is that terminology learning, right, so that we can use it later on down the road. Two basic forms of presenting universal truths in hortatory modes. The first is a consequential form, and the key word here is because. Because something is true, do this, or this is true, therefore do that. There's a causal effect between the principle and application, and the key word will be because. Consequential form because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must present Christ at every opportunity. The second major form is conditional, and you're saying because some condition exists, some condition exists, there are necessary implications, like. And the key words here are what, if or since. If or since this condition exists, there are these implications. If disciples are to preach Christ at every opportunity, then we must prepare to proclaim Him. If my first clause there, the principle was, since all are born and sent, here the condition, that's the condition in which people exist, since all are born and sent, then we must teach them the gospel. If all are in this condition, what are the necessary implications? Now, I just want you not to try to solve all the questions about which to use at which time. Your ear will tell you, okay, what I really just want you to hear is you've got options. Could be because, could be if, could be sense. I just want you to hear the options, and not wonder about, which is the right one here. If it sounds right to your ear, it'll sound right to other people's ear. Okay, so either because or since and if, there are many other ways of doing these things. This, what is true and what to do about it, wedding. You know, henna clauses in the Greek. That's not Eva, by the way, you have to plot your little Greek and go. Make it a henna clause, put the accent mark and everything with it. A henna clause is what kind of clause? We're going to do something. We must, that would be another way of doing it. But we're going to not go there yet this semester. We're going to concentrate on these conditional and consequential ways of wording things just to learn some basic principles. And the key thing again is just to know your options of either the, because statements or the if or sense statements. Because these forms reflect our preaching commitment to preaching accord with biblical priorities. That is truth and that, and having it applied to our lives. It's kind of what we said from the beginning, right? All scriptures inspired for doctorate, proof correction, instruction, and righteousness. Here's the applications. It's truth. It's inspired by God for these purposes. And we'll try to preach it that way, Mike. Yeah, you hear Mike's question. Say, how do I know which to use? What's, you know, what's the difference? They seem to be so similar. And actually, that's where I'm not wanting to go. I'm going to say, if your ear works, it will work for everybody else too. There is a technical difference between a causal effect and a condition with necessary implications. But how do I say this? Your ear will tell you, and most people won't care a bit. So if you just kind of say, I've got these options, if whatever works, you'll find it at times. You'll want to say, because, wow, but cause doesn't work here. And then you'll search the word sense and you'll find it works just fine. Because not everything will be in a causal relationship. But, you know, go to your English grammar and find a conditional statement and a consequential statement. And it will give you those technical things. And I don't even remember them. I mean, I recognize, you know, this is the condition, and this is cause and effect, condition with necessary implications. Just say, does the cause work? Does sense work? And, you know, usually whatever sounds best to you, and it will work. But sometimes the reason I'm giving you options is, you'll start with the cause and just go, man, that's just not right. And just once you have the option. Now those are propositions. And you recognize we're not talking about propositions alone, but we are also talking about good main points. So let's talk about some marks of good main points as well. Here they are, and I'm A through F in my outline under Roman 3. So you're going to have to make enough space under Roman 3 to have A through F. The first A, what's the mark of a good main point? Good main point is also a universal truth and a hortatory mode. Main points are also universal truths in hortatory modes. That's A. That is, they're a wedding of principle and application. So just like propositions, main points are also a wedding of principle and application. Here is Haddon Robinson who is, again, one of the wonderful classical writers on homologics. And many seminaries use his book, and he's just one of the, you know, really sterling writers on homologics. That's how he does it in his book on biblical preaching. And you'll just see, again, here's some classical forms. We should praise God because he has elected us in Christ. First question, is it conditional or is it consequential? It's consequential. Because now isn't happening at the beginning, it's happening at the middle, and that's just fine. It's still going to be a consequential worded statement. What is the application? What comes before or after the because? Before, that's right. We should praise God. So there is the application, the principle is here. He has elected us in Christ. So universal truth, wed to an application by a because. So that is a truth and application in consequential form. Now look at the parallelism as well as those same things happening in the second main point. We should praise God because he has dealt with us according to the riches of his grace. Conditional or consequential? Consequential again, and to have parallelism, you'd have to have consequential again, wouldn't you? So you know if one main point is consequential, the rest are going to have to be consequential. Or else your parallelism is going to fall apart. So it's going to be the same. We should praise God which is the application first or last part of the statement. The first, we should praise God again, we should praise God, and then we have a new principle. He has dealt with us according to the riches of his grace. Third main point, we should praise God because he has sealed us with the Holy Spirit until we acquire full possession of our inheritance. What test may it have trouble passing? It may have trouble passing the 3am test. If you were going to cut it short, just to kind of give it some brevity, where might you put the period? After Holy, I think so. You're going to still say the rest in the development of the point, aren't you? So you could say we should praise God because he has sealed us with the Holy Spirit. What Hadn-Robinson is doing here of course is he's simply quoting more of the verse. But if we were for homiletical purposes, wanting to just make it more brief, I think you could put the period there and talk about how the Holy Spirit seals us within the body of that main point. Now, do you notice we should praise God, we should praise God, we should praise God. The applications are the same throughout that outline, right? You've done the reading I know. What kind of consistent message is this? This is an application consistent message because the application clause is staying the same. So could you have had a principle consistent message? You could have had a principle consistent and changed the other side. Do you have to start with the application? No, could it be on either side? Do you have to put the becaus in the middle? No, could have been at the beginning? So there are variations here, but we recognize that what makes it consequential is a becaus somewhere, what makes it a valid main point is, it's got truth and application, and what makes it application consistent is the application is what is unchanging throughout the main point. If the principle had stayed the same, it would have been principle consistent throughout the main point. Question. It's a great question. And we're actually going to get to it in just a second, but just to say, how do you make sure that your proposition is broad enough to cover all of that? The proposition is going to have the same anchor clause, so that's going to take care of the consistent clause. So that's how it's going to cover that. The proposition will have the same consistent element, and that's how that stays the same. The developing side, what we would call the magnet clauses, the ones that are changing and therefore drawing attention to themselves. That's whether magnet clauses, they're drawing attention to themselves. The clauses that are changing, they're in your proposition, you have to have a clause conceptually large enough to cover them. I haven't thought about this on Haddon's outline for a while, but maybe we can do it here. If we were saying, we should praise God, if we were creating a proposition, we know that's going to stay the same, right? So we know that's the first part of our proposition. So he is dealt with us according to the riches of his grace. Oh, sorry, he's elected us in Christ. He's dealt with us according to the riches of his grace. He is ceiless with the Holy Spirit. Can you think of a clause that's kind of broad enough for that? We should praise God because what? Yes. I think that's right, because he has accomplished our salvation. And then I said, how did he do that? He elected us in Christ. He's dealt with us according to the riches of his grace. He's given us the ceiless with the Holy Spirit. So we have a conceptual entity that's broad enough to cover all the developing clauses. Good. That's good work, and of course, what we'll do very much through the rest of the semester is answer just those kinds of questions. But that is where we're creating this proposition that's got enough umbrella to it that it will cover conceptually the main points that come beneath. That's very good work, and that helps us move down the path. Another mark of good main points is that they are parallel, right? The language lines up. They are parallel in their wording. Another mark of good main points is that they are progressive. They are progressive. We don't say the same thing over again. In fact, we move typically toward greater and greater concepts. So we're progressing in our understanding and not staying in the same place. The next three items that I'm going to mention about main points are all applying to the application clause specifically. The first three things I did, universal truth and auditory mode, parallel and progressive, they apply to all portions of every main point. But the next three things I'm going to mention apply only to the application clause. It is first positively worded. It is positively worded. Remember how we said this last time, you take out the what? You take out the knots. So this semester, we're not going to word our main points in negatives. What not to do, what not to do, what not to do. We're just going to take out the knots. And you say, but didn't the Lord set a different precedent when he gave the Ten Commandments? That shall not. And I'll say, well, yeah. But you're not in that position yet. So we're going to learn by taking out the knots and try to word things in the positive. What should people do rather than what should they not do? So we'll take out the knots. You already know what the next one is going to be. There are also going to be the application clauses actively worded. Take out the what? Take out the bees. Take out all the being verbs. So all the isses, wasses, hasses, those sorts of things. Take out the being verbs. So they're going to be worded them actively. And then the last thing for the application clause is we will seek to word them as you or we. We will seek to word them as you or we. Now, technically, that's saying what? It's wording them either in the first or second person plural. But I just mean you or we. What should you do? You should do something. You must do something. Or we. Now, I've already been down the path a little bit with you. Homeloticians, particularly classical ones, debate this hugely. Should you say you or should you say we? Can you call a little bit what's the advantage? If you say you, what's the power of that? It's very directive. You have the authority to say you to people you should do something. You have the authority to do that. And what authority can you do that? Not your authority. You can, with the authority of the word of God, say you must stop. This is not the way Christians live. You have the authority to say that. Do you have the ability to say we? What's you as great authority? What's the advantage of the we? Community identity. It's identifying with people. At times you need to identify with people. At times you need to confront people. The answer is yes. And so I would again back up and say, I don't want to say right or wrong. I'm going to use that great word of judgment. Pastoral prudence. As a pastor, knowing what the word says and who your people are, which is most appropriate. So sometimes you will need to say you. And sometimes you need to say we. We are really struggling with grief today, some of us in this community. We are. And sometimes I need to say to people, you must stop entertainments that are hurting your heart as you are preparing to proclaim God's word to God's people. Sometimes I need to say you. Sometimes I need to say we. But the same will be true for you many times down the road. So those are our options and they work well in the application clause. Is that clear? The first three things I mentioned for main points, they deal to everything in the main point. Principle in application, parallelism, progression, the last three things, taking out the knots, taking out the bees, and using either you or we, those apply to the application clause only. How do we harmonize these things? How do we deal with those questions a little bit before? Keep the wording of the proposition and main points parallel. How do we make sure that we are keeping things together so that this message has unity? Here. Let me get it all on the screen at once. Here we have a principle consistent outline. I think you see that it is in consequential form. Because Jesus commands believers to proclaim Him boldly, we must proclaim Christ at every opportunity. Now, I hope when you just see a classical form, you already recognize one test it has trouble passing. What is it? Any classical worded main point proposition does have trouble passing the three M test. It is just a lot of words. So we are going to learn, ultimately we are going to move beyond this, but we are going to learn the classical forms because it does something. It teaches us basic hermeneutics even before we have had the rest of the curriculum. What is happening is you haven't had new testament intro and biblical hermeneutics and a lot of that yet, in which we will talk about how do you take something that is true and turn it into an imperative. That is always a fairly difficult step biblically. Jesus told us disciples to go into all the world, so you should go into all the world. Jesus and his disciples were sandals. Therefore, why is one an imperative and the others not? Why is one truth lead to an imperative? You are kind of being forced to wrestle with that already by wording main points and propositions with a truth and application and it is just forcing us before we have had a lot of principles down the road to begin to look at a text with basic hermeneutical principles in mind to allow us to proclaim truth accurately and boldly for God's people. So what do we do? In a proposition, we are going to make one side of the proposition become the same with the same side in the main points. Because Jesus commands believers to proclaim Him boldly, here's the overarching portion, we must proclaim Christ at every opportunity. Parallel phrase, anchor clause, same thing throughout. Because Jesus commands His believers to proclaim Him boldly, we should proclaim Christ in difficult situations. Again, this is the key word change, right? This is what's changing. We should proclaim Christ in difficult situations. We should proclaim Christ in difficult people in the second main point. And we should proclaim Christ despite our difficulties in the third main point. It's all about we must proclaim Christ at every opportunity. Which was the overarching clause of the proposition. In this particular case, the principle is staying the same. So it's principle consistent. The clause that's changing is the application. And therefore it is the magnet clause, meaning it will draw attention to itself. And ultimately we'll say the sub points, the applications, the illustrations are about the magnet clause. The clause that's changing because the ear just hears that as that's what's different. That's what you got to be talking about, what you said is different. So that will be drawing all that attention to itself. To fill out your outline, oh, let me just do the other so that you see. Application consistent, what does that look like? Notice this one is in consequential form. Mike see the sense. Since Jesus alone provides salvation, we must proclaim Christ to the world. Since Jesus alone purchased salvation. Notice in this case, the change clause is the beginning, the anchor clause is the second, and it's the application. We must proclaim Christ to the world, occurs in the proposition. And each of the main points, and that's an application, we must do something. So it's an application consistent outline. And what's changing is the reason for that same application. What's one reason for that application? Jesus alone purchased salvation. What's another reason? Jesus alone possessed salvation. What's another reason? Jesus alone bestows salvation. So the application is consistent, but the principle is changing. So you're saying, here's another reason to do this same thing. Here's another reason to do the same thing. Here's another reason to do the same thing. Application consistent with a change of principle. Again, here it's in conditional form. You can fill in these blanks now under B, under Roman 4, under B. Keep one side of the proposition consistent in main point development. So not only do we have parallelism between the points, one side, either principle or application, is going to be staying the same. It's going to be consistent. The side of the proposition that stays consistent in the outline is what clause. The one that stays the same, what's that called? What clause? It's the anchor clause. So the side that stays the same is the anchor clause. If the principle of the proposition becomes the anchor clause, what kind of consistent outline is this? If the principle is the anchor clause, what kind of outline? Principle consistent. If the application of the proposition becomes the anchor clause, this is what kind of consistent. Application consistent. We keep the non-consistent clauses of the main points as parallel in wording is possible. is possible, except for keyword changes. So even that clause that's changing, we're still gonna try to line up the verbs, line up the subjects, line up the out, you're just gonna line them up as good as we can, but something's going to be changing. And of course, those are the keyword changes. This non-consistent side of the main points is each main point developmental component or what kind of clause, magnet clause. Magnet clause, it draws the attention to itself. The magnet clause is what the exposition of the main points supports or develops. The magnet clause draws or attracts the exposition to itself, which is why it is so named. Thus the sub points of each main point are developing or supporting that main points magnet clause. The sub points will be developing the magnet clause. Now something will seem to be missing then. When do we ever deal with that anchor clause? When do we ever explain that that is true or how we got there? So that's item D. We establish the truth of the anchor clause. We establish the truth of the anchor clause early. The proof or truth of the anchor clause is established just before or just after the proposition. Usually it's in the introduction that we establish the truth of the anchor clause, but occasionally toward the beginning of the first main point. The early establishment of this premise is necessary since the whole sermon rests on the adequacy of the anchor clause. Here's where you are. The proposition here at the throat or the neck of the message is going to be based on what's been developed in the intro and preparing for everything that follows. Typically, that means the anchor clause is something rather apparent, rather taken for granted. Because you don't have a lot of time to be explaining it up in here. It should be something fairly obvious in the passage. Occasionally, it will not be. So if you don't have time to explain it there, you've got to do it here. Usually very early in the first main point. Otherwise, the sermon has not the foundation that you need to follow. So if I were to say, as you've seen, we must proclaim Christ at every opportunity. I'm going to say, here Jesus said, take the message to all nations. Everybody needs to hear this. Something kind of obvious that will be there. But if my first anchor clause is going to be something like God elects us by His grace alone, well, that may be a little further to establish, right? I may have to do a little bit more on that. And I may say, first, maybe that's too difficult to handle as an anchor clause. Maybe that should be in the developmental clause. That may take the whole sermon to develop. But if I can't just say it quickly and still want it to be the anchor clause, I should be able to explain it fairly quickly at one of these positions. Because really, it's the developmental side that I'm talking about in the rest of the sermon. So the anchor clause should be fairly clear early in the message almost always. We can get the anchor clause. It's rightly chosen, explained before the proposition itself appears. The people go, oh, of course, that's what you said you were talking about. I see that. I know that's what we're going to be talking about. Ed, yeah, Ed's asking, is it just arbitrary, whether you use principle or application consistent? No, it's not arbitrary. It is a feature of purpose. What is the purpose of this message? So I may say, in this message, what I really want is to people to change their behaviors. So in this case, I'm maybe even going to be doing principle because this is true, you should do this, and you should do this, and you should do this. Other times, I may want people not to change their behaviors, but only to reinforce a behavior. Do this for this reason, for this reason, for this reason. You already know to do this, but you're not doing it. You need to reexamine this reason and this reason, this reason. So you will be doing what you already did. You should pray more. Well, I knew that before I sat down. Why should I do it? So the message is going to be about reinforcing that application. Now, it may be that an application consistent or principle consistent message could be preached on the same text, given what you know passively is the purpose to which you're directing this message. Question? That's a good question. Does one lend itself better to web or flow, probably not? Probably not. Let me think about that for a second. Almost always, web is going to occur when there's some hard situation to be addressed. So you're looking for a text to address a situation. What would I be doing most of those times? Probably trying to reinforce faith concepts. It might be application consistent. You already know to believe and have faith in God in this position. Here's another reason. Here's another reason. Maybe. I haven't really thought that through. But web and flow usually relate to how we select text rather than how we're going to form the message. Question? Good. Yes. Right. What if your proposition comes from a different text than the rest of the message that you're preaching? If it comes from that. Technically, that will be known as a textual message. And we will not do that this semester. In an expository message, we'll say the proposition and main points come out of this text. Textual preaching has a rich history in homolytics. But we're not going to do that this semester. We're going to do expository messages, which say, I'm going to say, what does this text say? We may go to other text to support a corroborate. You know, I say, well, here's what it says here. And I can show it's here. But just so that you know that's true, I point to other texts as well. But we're not going to be saying, and I'll even give you examples of it a little bit later in this semester. Here's something from first John. Now, let's see how it played out in the life of David. We won't do that yet. That's technically called a textual message where main points come from the text. But developmental features come from somewhere else. We're going to say main points and subpoints come from this text. So this semester, we're doing expository only. And we'll actually talk about some of those definitions in the days to come. The text is actually a repetition of a previous text. Then we'll say context is part of text. In order to understand this text, you need to know where that repetition was. So that is necessary to interpret this text as to identify its context. That's different than a textual message where that idea is not, okay, where that's actually, you know, the classic thing that we would say is, if you were saying, I'm going to tell you what faith means in James by going to John. Okay, you are in big trouble now, because they use the word differently, okay. So we're going to say, what does this author mean in this place and make sure we're being expository? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. You can have series messages on topic and an individual topic can be preached expositorally. However, that is actually known as a topical message and is different than an expository message. So you all are really anticipating things well. A topical message takes its topic from the text but its development from other texts. And that technically is not an expository message. So we'll get there. Doesn't mean that it's not from the Bible. Doesn't mean it can't be developed scripturally. But an expository message solidly binds itself to say, I'm going to tell you what this text means. Now, I may have a subject in it, but I'm not saying, here's a subject prayer and let me tell you what five texts say on it. We're saying, what does this text say? So you can preach the topic of prayer expositionally, drawing it out of scripture. But an expository message by historical definition gets main points and sub points from this text. Okay, so that is its definition and we'll go there. Guys, you all have a quiz to take in 12 minutes. Okay, so I'm going to kind of go and see if I can gather your questions toward the end if we could. Because most of what you've asked, we'll actually get to. And if I'm confusing here, I don't want that to be a hindrance to us getting down the road in a bit. Some cautions for propositions and main points. Here's some cautions. A, make sure main points are not co-existent. Make sure propositions and main points are not co-existent. Now you see the, from your readings, I think what that means, coexistence definition. What is it, remember? When the thought or wording of a main point, coexistence occurs when the thought or wording of a main point is too much like a proposition or other main point.
When the thought or wording of a main point is too much like the proposition or another main point.
I'll put an example here on the screen for you. The proposition, because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ at every opportunity. First main point, because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ whenever there is an opportunity. Now it was different words, isn't it? But what does it conceptually like, the first main point? It's just the proposition over again. So even though I've chosen different words, the concept hasn't changed. Now what does a hearer who's not looking at an outline, just listening, what does the hearer wonder? Was that a development? Was that the same thing over again? Or, let's say you use this number one as number three. Because Jesus is the only hope of salvation, we must preach Christ whenever there is an opportunity, if that was the third main point. People would say, wait a second, we already talked about that. We're spinning our wheels, we've been there already. Coexistence usually happens when you've chosen different words, but the concept is too much like the first one. You've already been there. You know when you usually pick it up, when you start doing applications, and you've got nothing different to say than when you said in that other main point. We should pray more, first main point, and then we should pray more frequently, and you're kind of like, what can I say different now than I just said a minute ago? The application seemed to be the same. So we want to make sure that our concepts as well as our wording differs between the main point, and that's the note kind of at the bottom of the page there. Coexistence may be conceptual as well as terminological,
maybe conceptual as well as terminological. Item B, another problem to avoid is this, make sure the proposition does not inadvertently indicate a development or structure the main points do not reflect.
If the magnet clause of one of my main points is, Jesus saves and keeps.
What do people automatically assume the sub points are going to be? Saves and keeps. What gave them the clue that those were the sub points, that conjunction right there? If you use conjunctions, the ear hears that as divisions. Hear that? You meant to unite things. The ear hears it as a division. So if you say Jesus saves and keeps, you have already signaled to people what my sub points are. But what if you meant to say my first main point is, a sub point here is not saves, he hears and responds was the ear prepared for those words, was not prepared for those words. What if it was simply something like he saves and responds?
Still not prepared, still confused. If you create what's called branching, see this? It's branching and conjunctions create branching. You have orally told people where you're going. It can be very effective, can it? You even word the clauses, so saying, here's what we're going to be talking about. But what you don't want to do is to create a development you don't follow, because then you only create confusion. Now, I'm just going to tell you, for a number of you who are working on the Thessalonians passage, you're going to be tempted to say things like, because Jesus died and rose again, we should follow him. What do people automatically assume are your sub points? Jesus died and rose again. Now, in your ear, that's just one concept. He died and rose again. The ear doesn't hear it that way. You just divided the thought, okay? So what would you say? If you had to say he died and rose again, which of these would you probably pick? If you weren't going to follow those branches, which would you pick? Because if you would pick rose again, because the rise again, he must have died, okay? So if you had to pick, pick the overarching concept. Now, what if you wanted to say my first main point is that he died, this is not main point, sub point. What if my first sub point is he died and my second is he rose again? Then what will I want to do? I may very well want to put those branches into the wording so that it follows. But here's the idea. We want to avoid branching unless we use it. Avoid branching unless you use it. If you use it by all means, it can be very helpful. But avoid branching unless you use it. Some helpful hints to know whether or not we are wording main points and propositions as we want. The first is the imperative test. The imperative test. Do you have within that main point a we or a you should? We should, you should, we must, you must. Is there an imperative clause? Is there a we or you should or you? You must, you should. Is there a you or a we should or must? An imperative clause. By the way, if you don't use the we or the you, it would be a verb in the imperative mode, right? Pray because God listens. What's the implied pronoun missing? You, you should pray. But you're saying you can just use an imperative mode verb. But the danger would be that you have two clauses none of which has an application. Because God is sovereign, he raised Jesus from the dead. What's missing? I got two clauses, but what's missing? There's no imperative, right? Because God is sovereign, he raised Jesus from the dead. It's two clauses, but there's no you or we, all right? These technically are known as statements of fact, but not exhortations. There's no exhortations, it's just a statement of fact about something, but it has no exhortation clause. Be the stand alone test. Will the principle clause stand alone? If you were just to read the principle clause, would it make sense unto itself? Can you just kind of chop it apart and say that makes sense or not? Not this, because Jesus promises it, we should love Him. Now if you were just to chop off the principle clause, which would it be, Jesus promises it. Now, does that make sense? What are your questions? Jesus promises it. I have no idea what that means. So look at the principle clause and say, does that make, if I were just to make it stand on its own, does it make sense? It's supposed to be a universal truth. So if I just look at unto itself, will it stand alone? More like this, because Jesus promises His love, we should love Him. Okay, in that case, Jesus promises His love, that makes sense unto itself. Now, one key hint, by the way, this will be on the quiz that you're taking in the next few minutes. So, this is where I give you the answers, but listen, homologics is different. You know, I don't mean to surprise you on anything. I really want, you know, the hundred of us to walk through these next three years together and just not have questions about what we're doing. So, you know, it's a little reinforcement mechanism, so I'm telling you, this is common. It'll be there in the next, here's the hint. Do not use pronouns in both the magnet and anchor clauses. Do not use pronouns in both the magnet and anchor clauses. This is known as a double pronoun error. Because Jesus loves us, we should proclaim Him. Because Jesus loves us, we should proclaim Him. And what does the we refer to? Because Jesus loves us, we should proclaim Him. What does the we refer to? Us, I got a pronoun referring to a pronoun. Okay, who is the us? Because Jesus loves His people, because Jesus loves believers, because Jesus loves His children. Make sure that the pronoun is referring to a noun. If you've got, you know, always even have to have a noun in the first clause, but you don't want to, you don't want a pronoun referring to a pronoun. Okay, you need a noun or else an implied noun. The non-sequitor test, the non-sequitor test. Make sure the application clause logically flows from the principal clause. The simple fact that you've got two clauses, doesn't mean they work together. Because God comforts the grieving, we should tithe. Now there is both principal and application there, they do not go together, okay. So you want to make sure, simple fact, you've got principal and application, does not make it work. You want to make sure that the thought flows, that it's a, it's a sequitor, non-sequitor. Now you've read this material, kind of heard me talk about it. The next most important thing to do to understand it is to do it. Right, so that's what we're gonna be doing next time. Between now and next time, you know the passages that you'll be working on, and the ideas to come next time with outlines, proposition and main point.