Sermons

Sermon Prep

75 Comments

Steps To Preparing A Fundamentalist Sermon For Human Consumption:

1. Find a sermon from an average fundamentalist pastor on any given Sunday. You may wish to wear gloves as an untreated sermon may be toxic to the touch. When dealing with certain sermon varieties (especially those native to the Southern regions) earplugs should also be worn to prevent internal damage.

2. Remove corny jokes at the top. Should not be difficult, jokes are so old they will easily fall to dust and blow away when touched.

3. Peel off proof texts being careful to strip off attached eisegesis as well. This should not take long since very little of the text is normally present.

4. With a sharp knife cut out any illustration that glorifies the pastor more than it glorifies Christ. Sermon should now be very small and easily handled.

5. Soak remainder in the alcohol of your choice until political opinions, guilt trips, and random comments are all dissolved. Have a drink and contemplate what a waste of good alcohol this step is.

6. No further preparation is necessary. Once all the above steps have been done nothing will remain.

75 thoughts on “Sermon Prep”

    1. Being first was so overwhelming that I can’t think of anything very brilliant to say. I will put this in my recipe book just in case I ever happen upon another IFB sermon in my life. Hopefully that will be never.

    1. All the mental… hard work, preparation, keyboard exercises and concentration this summer are really starting to pay off. I would like to thank george for his support as well.

      Now let’s go for the Gold!

      *the crowd in the background chants:
      “S-F-L!”, “S-F-L!” ,”S-F-L!”

  4. Be sure that whatever you do – you do not reference a commentary from someone who toiled over that particular passage. Remember that you are a biblicist (I.e., just my Bible and me).

    1. Yes and to listen to or read after anyone whom God has gifted with the ability to proclaim and explain scripture would be to follow a “Man made” theology.

      2. You can use someone else’s commentary on the Scripture– just be sure not to give that writer credit, and act as if you thought of it yourself.

    2. A Biblicist that doesn’t open his Bible either. Now, it’s just me, myself, and I.

      1. In Indiana, the pastor of our small church had a preaching conference (that attracted more preachers than audience), one of whom was a man that COULD NOT READ!

        My husband and I were flabbergasted. Our pastor assured us that his wife read the Bible to him.

        I’m guessing he didn’t do a whole lot of studying commentaries or Greek and Hebrew.

        It seemed like every other man we met in Indiana was a self-proclaimed “preacher of the Word.”

        1. Let me clarify: it wouldn’t be a problem if those men were Biblically-qualified and humble, but all it seemed to mean was that they liked standing in front of a group of church folks hollering and screaming about their pet peeves and claiming Biblical sanction for their opinions.

    3. Dear Polished Shaft:

      Step 1] Shout, ‘we believe every word in the Bible!’

      Step 2] If no text, pound pulpit to show conviction.

      Step 3] Do and say whatever you want at the moment.

      Step 4] If 45 minutes haven’t expired, go to Step 1.

      Christian Socialist

    4. Or, as a preacher I know well says, “One writer says this…….”. Never actually crediting them. I think it is because so many good commentaries are written by those he puts in the Calvinist camp, and we all know the sheeple need him to remove the heresy. If he gives a name, the congregants might follow up and check him out. We wouldn’t want to be like the church at Berea and search the scripures to keep the moG in check, you know.

  5. Strangely enough, this also applies to the typical American Evangelical non-denom, seeker-driven, mega (or wannabe) Church sermon. The only difference is the silly cultural taboos and the KJV. The Fundys are more aggressive and confrontational, but the sermon content is just as worthless.

    1. Yes, but at least you can go enjoy life afterwards without feeeling guilty for enjoying yourself instead of soul winning.

      2. Yeah, maybe. For a little while. Then you get so depressed over having nothing in particular to believe and nothing in particular to do once you followed the 7 Steps to Something or Other and things aren’t any different then they were last month.

  6. All that cutting out and reducing would leave a 5 minute sermon. We all know that’s not going to happen.

    1. 5 minutes? It doesn’t take that long to read a verse that will be ignored for the rest of the sermon. :mrgreen:

    2. Come to my church, that’s how long it is to start with. And we read about 30 verses each week!

  8. My mom and I were talking about number 1 just the other day. We called it the IFB recycled speech day. Yawns. How Boring.

  9. Darrell, Darrell, Darrell …

    You have outdone yourself with this one. Thanks for making my day!

    Christian Socialist

  10. How to construct a fundy sermon:
    [1] Think of someone who pissed you off recently
    [2] Open your sermon with the story of how they pissed you off. Change the first letter of the last name in the story, to avoid the appearance of spreading malicious gossip.
    [3] Read a verse from the Torah that involves stoning and explain how if America hadn’t been over-run by gays and liberals the offending party should have been stoned.
    [4] If you can’t find a way to equate a critical comment with sodomy, you can always fall back on the “if you break one command you are guilty of the whole law” thing.
    [5] Explain how this is all the result of our tree-hugging public education system and the Democrats.
    [6] Extra points for using incredibly clever and catchy homophones such as demoncrats, anti christian liberties union, new york slimes, etc.
    [7] Pot luck!

    2. Ah, but brother that’s not the only way!

      Alternate Steps to Constructing a Fundy Sermon:

      1. Turn on computer
      2. Surf to fundy website.
      3. Sign “covenant” to only use these sermons for “help” in preparing your own, to get access.
      4. Download sermon, print and preach word for word.

  11. After reading this post, I realized that listening to a fundy sermon would be a lot like eating blowfish. Sure if an expert prepares it right they can cut out the poisonous parts. You might not die, but do you really want to take the chance. Just go have a steak from Piper or MacArthur and call it good.

      1. I remember my mom listening to MacArthur on the radio when I was a kid, but I haven’t heard him recently. What is it that people don’t like about him, other than his not being Fundy?

        1. I was just trolling. I got a few smiles which is all I really wanted. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard MacArthur. I have some good friends that I respect that seem to like him. That’s about all I’m qualified to say.

        4. MacArthur himself denies the efficasiousness of Christ’s blood for salvation, and says as much in his study bible as well as his commentary on Hebrews. He falsely believes that anytime the Sriptures refer to the blood, it is symbolic of Jesus’ death.

          He picked up this false teaching from R.B. Thieme, and has been spouting it ever since. But like all things calvinism, this mess must be taught to you, for you will not find this teaching in the bible.

          “How much more severely do you think a man desreves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has teated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29 (it would appear that God and MacArthur differ about the blood)

          “They overcame him by the blood of he Lamb….” Rev 12:11

        5. um greg, now you’re making stuff up. As per usual you are perpetuating a caricature of something you have heard someone say.
          Try at least reading articles that are referenced before you chime in. It will save you from looking so ignorant.

          From the article Duke referenced:

          Nonetheless, it is surely significant that even the president of the institution that first published the accusation finally admitted that there is no substance to the endlessly-circulating charges of heresy.

          The truth is, as Branson correctly pointed out, there never was any real substance to the allegations.

          Look again at the point MacArthur was attempting to make in the first place: When Scripture speaks of Christ’s “blood,” the expression is normally a reference to His sacrificial atoning death, not the actual red and white corpuscles. And the vivid language in our hymns about the cleansing ability and “wonder-working power” of the blood and “a fountain filled with blood” is not meant to be taken literally. There is no magical or mystical cleansing property in the red fluid, and there is no container of blood in heaven that is somehow literally applied to sinners. Such language is meant to speak of Christ’s sacrificial atonementā€”just as when Paul spoke of “the preaching of the cross” he had in mind the death of Christ, not the literal wooden instrument on which the Savior died. We’re not to think a piece of wood is the point of our preaching. What happened on that cross is what is efficacious for our salvation, not some magical power in the wood itself. Similarly with the blood of Christ: it is the violent pouring out of blood in Christ’s sacrificial death that saves us, not some supernatural property of the fluid itselfā€”just what MacArthur said in the first place.

          The obvious truth of all that has escaped a few militant fundamentalists who have no clear concept of the biblical notion of blood atonement, but who revel in labeling anyone who is not part of their group a heretic. They continue to insist that MacArthur is actually denying the efficacy of Christ’s blood.

          To buttress their point, several of Macarthur’s detractors insist that Christ’s blood was never human blood at all, but the very blood of God, endued with divine power. That view is disturbingly similar to the ancient Docetic heresy, which denied that Jesus’ body was truly or fully human.

          Some of MacArthur’s more militant critics have allowed their superstition on this matter to get the best of them. During the World Congress on Fundamentalism, which met on the BJU Campus, August 4-8, 1986, they passed a resolution declaring that Christ’s actual blood is eternally preserved in heaven, where it is by some mystical means literally applied to each believer. According to the World Congress, such a rigidly literal view of Christ’s blood is now to be considered a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and they will break fellowship with anyone who denies it:

          The precious Blood is indestructible. It cannot be anything else because of its permanence. The Blood is eternally preserved in Heaven.

          and furthermore,

          This congress . . . Rejects every attempt either to deny the literalness of the Blood or to minimize its efficacy and the necessity of its shedding in Christ’s death on the cross. Such denial is a dangerous and devilish deception.

          “Rejects every attempt . . . to deny the literalness of the Blood”? Do they now agree with Rome’s insistence that “blood” in John 6:54-56 is to be understood in a literal sense? Notice that there is no exception to their rule; they reject “every attempt . . . to deny the literalness of the Blood.”

          Unfortunately, some of our “fundamentalist” brethren are blithely oblivious to the blatant echo of transubstantiation and popery in that opinion. They seem to be pining for the old days when someone like MacArthur who dared challenge religious superstition would be burnt at the stake. So they have opted to hound him with unrelenting accusations, innuendo, and false accusations. These misguided brethren are so blindly determined to tie John MacArthur to the heretics’ stake that they haven’t noticed how their own rhetoric has carried them into serious heresy instead, denying the full humanity of Christ’s body, and opening the door to a Romanesque literalism regarding the application of Christ’s blood to sinners.

          To my knowledge, not one of MacArthur’s fundamentalist critics has ever written a dispassionate analysis of his position showing why they believe MacArthur’s view is “heresy” from a doctrinal or biblical perspective. The one fundamentalist who dealt with the controversy in a book had the integrity to examine both sides carefully, then declared MacArthur right and his critics wrong [Branson, Ibid.].

          MacArthur’s view on the blood of Christ is identical to that of Charles Spurgeon, who wrote:

          Jesus Christ has made a will, and he has left to his people large legacies by that will. Now, wills do not have to be sprinkled with blood, but wills do need that the testator should be dead, otherwise they are not of force. As it was not possible that Christ should die other than a violent death, seeing that he must die as a sacrifice, the term “blood” becomes in this case tantamount to “death”. . And so, first of all, the blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary is the blood of the testament, because it is A PROOF THAT HE IS DEAD [emphasis Spurgeon’s], and therefore the testament is in force (MTP, vol. 26, p. 632).

          What is this “blood of sprinkling”? In a few words, “the blood of sprinkling” represents the pains, the sufferings, the humiliation, and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he endured on the behalf of guilty man. When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God; we mean what Isaiah intended when he said, “He shall make his soul an offering for sin”; we mean all the griefs which Jesus vicariously endured on our behalf at Gethsemane, and Gabbatha, and Golgotha, and specially his yielding up his life upon the tree of scorn and doom. “The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission”; and the shedding of blood intended is the death of Jesus, the Son of God,” (MTP, vol. 32, p. 123).

          But what does “the blood” mean in Scripture? It means not merely suffering, which might be well typified by blood, but it means suffering unto death, it means the taking of a life. To put it very briefly, a sin against God deserves death as its punishment, and what God said by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel still standeth true, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” The only way by which God could fulfill his threatening sentence, and yet forgive guilty men, was that Jesus Christ, his Son, came into the world, and offered his life instead of ours (MTP, vol. 40, p. 325).

          Despite his detractors’ claims, MacArthur clearly affirmsā€”and has always affirmedā€”the necessity and full efficacy of Christ’s blood atonement. In The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness he writes,

          Scripture plainly teaches that only a blood sacrifice can atone for sin and appease the wrath of God against the sinner. God told Old Testament Israel, “The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (KJV). Hebrews 9:22 states it succinctly: “Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

          So atonement by shedding of blood is absolutely essential to the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is impossible without a propitiatory sacrifice. Scripture teaches this plainly. The wrath and justice of God must not be downplayed in our understanding of His forgiveness. [(Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 22.]

          . . . . . . . . . . . .

          The clear teaching of the Bible, from beginning to end, is that sinners cannot atone for their own sins in any way. A perfect sacrifice was therefore needed to atone for sin on their behalf. This involved shedding the blood (death, not merely blood-letting) of an innocent Substitute. And the substitute must bear on the sinner’s behalf the full punishment for guilt, not merely a token penalty (cf. Isaiah 53:5). Only such a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of God’s justice, and thus propitiate Him toward sinners. That is exactly what Scripture says Christ’s sacrifice provided:

          “God set [Christ] forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:25-26, NKJV).

          We unequivocally reject the liberal notion that this doctrine of vicarious atonement places God in the same category as ancient heathen gods who supposedly demanded blood sacrifices in order to be mollified. The atoning work of Christ has nothing whatsoever in common with pagan notions about propitiation and offended deities. The God of Scripture is not at all like the gods of ancient Canaan, or even the more sophisticated gods of Greek mythology. He is not temperamental and irritable, requiring some sacrificial inducement in order to placate a fiery temper. We’re not to think of God’s wrath as equivalent to a bad mood. His righteous hatred of sin is a fixed and holy disposition, not a volatile temperament. And His demand that sin be atoned for is an essential matter of divine righteousness, not a fatuous need for vengeance.

          Nor should anyone imagine that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary to overcome some reluctance on the Father’s part to save sinners. God is inherently loving, eager to save, taking no pleasure in the death of any sinner (Ezekiel 33:11).
          Still, it is the clear teaching of Scripture that, as a simple matter of divine justice, the only acceptable atonement for sin was a blood sacrifice, a suffering Substitute who would bear the full wrath of God on the sinner’s behalf. Christ is the only worthy Substitute, and His dying on the cross rendered the atonement necessary to provide forgiveness for sinners.

          This doctrine of substitutionary atonement is therefore the whole ground of God’s forgiveness. Apart from Christ’s atoning work, no sinner would ever have any hope of salvation. [Ibid., 23-24.]

        6. I’m making nothing up, and you are the only one lookng ignorant. The article you cited is full of man’s idiotic philosphy.

          This is from MacArthur’s commentary on Hebrews, published by Moody Bible Institute in 1983.

          “It is possible to become morbid about Christ’s sacrficial death and preoccupied with His suffering and shedding of blood. It is especially possible to become unbiblically preoccupied with the physical aspects of His death. It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized by the shedding of His physical blood.”

          Can MacArthur make himself anymore clear about what he thinks of the blood of Jesus “IT WAS NOT JESUS’ PHYSICAL BLOOD THAT SAVES US”

          Romans 3:25 “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood”

          How are we atoned for? “Through faith in his blood!”

          MacArthur may be trying to figure out another way to get saved, but my sins are atoned for “through faith in His blood.”

          I want to face God with my faith in the blood of Christ, because Jesus made peace, not through His death alone, but “through the blood of His cross” Col 1:20

          In Exodus 12:6-7, notice it wasn’t just the killing of the lamb that was necessary, but the blood “had” to be applied. So not only the killing but the blood-letting and application was necessary!

          The blood of Jesus is in heaven right now!

          “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heavven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new convenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

          Mr MacArthur, you seem to want to make fun of the blood, as you sarcastically ask about bowls or vials of it, and how did it get there, but Sir, I hope you will begin to “trust” in it, because that’s how your wicked sins get atoned for!

          The red stuff flowing in everyone’s veins that reads these words, indeed every single person that ever walked upon this planet have Adam’s blood, that is except for one, and that one is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Even the wicked Judas knew that Jesus blood was pure and sinless when he said “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.” Matthew 27:4

          You see Adams’s sinful blood “infected” with sin, and through this infected blood the entire human bloodline was infected. So it took the perfect, sinless blood of the last Adam to make atonement for the sin of the world.

          “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” 1Cor 15:22

          Jesus is the only one ever called the “seed of the woman”, because He was “made of a woman” with God as his father….and thus His blood was without the sin of Adam. In God’s plan of redemption, only sinless blood could be supplied by a sinless Son of God, born of a virgin! A mother’s blood never mixes with the blood of her unborn child!

          “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Acts 20:28….Our God says that it was HIS blood which purchased the church…I think the next two verses are very telling, as we talk about MacArthur’s horrible mishandling of these truths about “the blood of His cross”……..v-29″I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. v-30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”

        7. See greg that is why we can’t have any discussion. You have all the answers and only you have the answers. You claim to not be a Fundie but all you have done is change ships, you still carry the same fundie baggage around with you.

          You are so hung up on Calvinism, you are blinded by your vitrolic hatred of the doctrines of Grace. If you have not been badly burned by some Calvinist group then all I can think of is you have lost someone close to you that you cared about deeply and you are clinging to the hope that they made a decision. Whatever it was, you are absolutely eat up with an unreasonable hatred of anything or anyone that holds to the Doctrines of Grace.

          You said:The article you cited is full of manā€™s idiotic philosphy. No, the article is actually filled with solid exegetical doctrine. You are the one what is holding on to shadow over substance. You hold the blood to be greater than the sacrifice. What sanctified the blood if it was not the sacrifice? You also teach that Christ’s work was not completed on the cross, you have Christ still at work in heaven covering all those who are being saved each day.

          As long as you keep posting your hatred I will keep answering with the Gospel/Doctrines of Grace.

        8. Don – I’m wondering whose posts are you reading? They can’t be mine, where in the world is all of this hatred you are speaking of?

          You post man-made theology/philosphy, I post the living word of God.

          You would point the readership of SFL to men’s books and beliefs. I quote the Living Word of God and want no one to even believe me, but to look up and study and meditate on God’s word. I have said often, I’m a very easy person to win to your side, simply show it to me in God’s word, and you got me!

          I stand on God’s word and will continue to do so, pitiful sinful men (me included) could and might say anything.

          “…be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

          Don you may not like it, and the calvinistic superstars that you blindly follow may not like it, but hear the word of God. God says he purchased the church with His Own blood!!…Now this is God talking and Jesus is not even in view! Of course, God’s Son carried his father’s blood in His body, the Precious, sinless, pure blood that is in Heaven right now! That is if you believe the Scriptures! Hebrews 12:22-24

          If you don’t believe this is talking about Heaven, may I ask you some questions?

          1) Is Mount Zion considered the heavenly Jerusalem?

          2) Is it the city of the living God?

          3) Are there thousands and thousands of angels in joyful assembly?

          4)Is this the church of the firstborn, and are the names of these firstborns written down?

          5) Is God there, and is He the judge of all men?

          6) Is this the place where spirits of righteous men are made perfect?

          7) Is Jesus there, and is He the mediator of the new covenant?

          8) So please tell me what is this “sprinkled blood” that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel?

        9. Good grief greg you can’t see what you are posting? Do you not see why you are caricatured as the gay-calvinist?

          greg, you are still stuck in fundie mode. Even tonight you are flaming away on homosexuality. Newsflash greg, the gays don’t care what you have to say because you have made yourself their enemy. You don’t show the love of Christ to them or to anyone who doesn’t embrace your opinionated theology. Your militant literalism has lost you the battle for the hearts of those you engage before you even start.

          I’m not going to re-hash the blood issue out here with you. I have stated my case in the forums. You act as though you, and you alone, have the corner on the Scripture greg and that is getting old. If anyone doesn’t agree with your theology you post you little passive/aggressive plea to come to the Lord and get saved. (That really irks me by the way, just go ahead and be honest, come on out and say you believe anyone who doesn’t believe like you do isn’t saved.)

          And you lie:

          You would point the readership of SFL to menā€™s books and beliefs. I quote the Living Word of God and want no one to even believe me, but to look up and study and meditate on Godā€™s word. I have said often, Iā€™m a very easy person to win to your side, simply show it to me in Godā€™s word, and you got me!

          Time after time I have given scripture (in context)and shown you solid Biblical doctrine and you reject it because it doesn’t line up with your views.
          And what I quoted from you is really, really condescending. See I’m not as smart as you think you are, and I read behind men who are smarter than I am, who have studied these things their entire lives… not as a replacement to scripture but as an aid. You stand alone, king of all you survey and have no man made aid other than what you yourself have made. (yet your universalism and Semipelagianism are errors that have been perpetrated on the church for almost as long as the church has existed. You do realize that before Charles Finney that the greater part of the Churches and denominations in America embraced the Doctrines of Grace? They did.)

          I know I’m not “all that” but then again I never claimed I was. I try to walk peaceably with all men and declare the majesty and love of Chriat as I go. I very often fail. This rebuke is done out of love greg. You cannot see yourself for what you have become, a cliche’. I’m glad you are passionate about what you believe but you are a bull in the china shop and in your zeal to be right you leave a path of distruction and ill will. You may claim victory with your attacks but you have lost the very thing you were supposed to be the example of. It’s easy to “win” the argument, or the fight… but you lose so much more in the process. I know, because I’m guilty of it myself at times.

          Take it for what it’s worth.

        10. Don, I think you missed the part where greg long ago declared himself to have the only understanding of scripture that is acceptable to God, and you should start accepting it immediately if you don’t want to be an abomination too! šŸ™‚

        11. Don – You are not my judge, God is!

          You are probably right about the gays not caring what I have to say, but God does. It is not “loving” or “kind” or “truthful” to placate homosexuals and their vile sins.

          I do have an “opinionated” theology, that comes only from the word of God, you do realize that our Savior was crucified for his “narrow” theology?

          The “fundy” one here is you Don, and again it’s just funny that you give me a bunch of man-made theology, quote Spurgeon, MacArthur, and then call that mess “solid biblical doctrine” and then want to get upset that this man-made theology is turned on its head by the living word of God! And then you want to call me “fundy!”

          I care nothing about what the church embraced or what Charles Finney has to say. Don….”NEWSFLASH” We have “The Living Word of God” at our fingertips, just so we don’t have to follow these “learned” men you are so proud of! (let’s see Spurgeon? MacArthur? or Paul and all the other inspired authors of the Scriptures. I shouldn’t have to ask, but this is yet another reminder that we live in a fallen world!)

          I’m no king, I’m a wicked, sinful man saved by the Grace of the Living God, who loved me so much, He left His word for me to study and live by, why in this world would someone want to eat at a fast-food restaurant when the Living God has prepared for us a banquet? That is what you do when you put simple men on pedestals, that is exactly how “Schapp” got into the position he held over those imprisoned folks at 1st Baptist.

          Don you have become a teacher that “scratches itching ears” you have bought into a faith that is not from the bible, you have followed men, in their deception, there is nothing, I repeat nothing in the rotting tulip that is true. I call on you to seek the Living God, ask Him to reveal Himself to you through the Living word, ask His Holy Spirit to guide you into truth.

        12. Don you have become a teacher that ā€œscratches itching earsā€ you have bought into a faith that is not from the bible, you have followed men, in their deception, there is nothing, I repeat nothing in the rotting tulip that is true. I call on you to seek the Living God, ask Him to reveal Himself to you through the Living word, ask His Holy Spirit to guide you into truth.

          Thanks for illustrating my point greg.

  12. Well… there are good IFB churches (which don’t get a lot of attention), and there are IFB churches run by controlling, manipulative men. As I’ve moved around the country with various jobs, I’ve been in churches of both kinds… not sure if this is typical, but I’ve experienced churches under about a dozen pastors:
    6 were decent men*
    1 more decent man, but his wife wanted money (she forced him out of the pastorate)
    1 who would change missionary support without telling/asking the congregation (I did the books in that church)
    1 adulterer
    1 who fits the typical profile here (manipulative, fame-seeking, controlling)

    There have probably been a few more that I cannot think of

    * one of these men had his own business; some church men accused him of greed, but this was a power play and did not come across in the messages. I learned a lot from this man.

    1. I attended a good IFB church during part of my time at Fundy U. The pastor was sincere, blameless, and self-sacrificing. The members I got to know were kind-hearted and generous.

      In the end, though, I finally settled on a PCA church (got special permission to attend). My new church didn’t just have nice people and good pastors–it had doctrine and teaching that actually gave them a reason the be that way! Finally I could go to church every Sunday and learn something that gave me a reason to have hope!

  13. Instead of doing all that, bake an apple pie. Then call me up, and I’ll come over. Let me know, and I’ll pick up some ice cream. Also, please brew coffee.

    1. That must be a trailer for the new reality series, “Ranting and Raving with Irascible Rednecks.”

    2. ‘Course he hates that thing! ‘Cuz it’s not even digital! ‘Requires an evil converter box to even watch TV! And letterboxes his DVDs! But it’s all good, because now he’s got himself a godly, digital, wide-screen, 1080p, plasma TV, Hay-Men?

      (and what’s with that laser-pointer dot following the preacher around the stage on some of these videos?)

    3. And this relates to Jesus’ death and resurrection … how? What class! What charlatanism!

      Christian Socialist

  15. the guy in that video (Larry Brown) was a Hyles disciple and one of Schaap’s close friends. There is a follow up video to this one set to Kiss’ “War Machine”. I’d love to Darrell to post that. There is also a video called “Hyles The Wrestling” promoter which you have to see.

    No wonder IFB’s make the TBN crowd look good. :mrgreen:

  16. What’s ironic is this is the same exact sermon that Jack “jacks-off” the shaft. Go to the 55:39 mark and watch Jack call a church member a loser because she was honest with him concerning her life. It’s unbelievable how much this guy was full of hate and anger. This guy was such a piece of garbage. The dude had it coming.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y3_rXMbfGc

    1. The whole sermon is a spectacular display of Schaap’s bragging, bullying nature, and the minutes following 55:30 are a sort of climax of tackiness– maybe even more so than the arrow-polishing display.

      What I found most mesmerizing, though, was the introduction by the first white-coated guy, who gives a long pangeyric about how Schaap is the most wonderful human– no, superhuman– ever to draw a breath. These people were really in it up to their necks.

        2. He’s the interim pastor now? Ha!
          I didn’t know that, but I had a hunch.

          That makes it really worthwhile to view the first few minutes of this vid. He really comes across as remarkably meretricious (one of my favorite vocabulary words).

  17. I noticed there wasn’t any meat in your picture, Darrell. Much like most fundy sermons.

  18. Of course, a fundie sermon is nothing without the polish. They pick their favorite preacher to imitate, down to the oil-slicked hair or the pounding of the pulpit. The screaming, followed by low soft words, followed by more yelling, berating, and then a sweet invitation to the altar so everyone can see you “repenting” is mesmerizing.

    So for a video sermon to be rendered fit for human consumption, one must use technology to fuzz the speaker out visually.

    1. Polish?
      My writing teacher used to say (about rewriting) “Don’t just polish your work. If you polish sh-t, all you get is shiny sh-t.”

  20. I wish the last fundy preacher I heard had seen this advice, but then again, I wouldn’t have been able to fill my Bingo card.

  21. Wow. The Don and Greg show is impressive. It illustrates the fact that there are 25,000 denominations, sects, splinters, and specks of Christianity in the US alone, all of which proclaim a variant of “I stand on Godā€™s word and will continue to do so, pitiful sinful men (me included) could and might say anything.”

    I love to watch a good fight. Sometimes I like to take part in one. But I decided to leave Fundistand because there were so many winds of doctrine blowing hard there that I couldn’t stay on my feet!

    Still, if anything, the Don and Greg Show illustrate that it is very hard to leave Fundistand behind. It will pull you back in somehow, someway. You will find yourself *fighting* Scripture with Scripture.

Comments are closed.