I totally agree with Pastor John MacArthur.

Yet there is some wonderment, in terms of a thought experiment, by the Internet Monk as to whether and how the faithful and full proclamation of the Word by a preacher will be “successful” in a particular context. Please see this excerpt:

“Their models are Macarthur, Piper, Mahaney, Dever and Keller. They understand the church planting ideas of Mark Driscoll and ACTS 29. They are sympathetic to the missional approach of Ed Stetzer. They believe in doctrinal Christianity as the basis for experience and church life. They love the Puritans and believe in books as a way to disciple their people. They have a strong commitment to complementarianism. They are the new breed of SBC pastors and this is their chance.

What’s going to happen?”

From: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/12-churches-12-calvinists

For a preacher…that leaves only the Word, because every other word comes from the mind of man.

It’s either the Word or it isn’t.
It either builds or destoys.
It either heals or it hurts.
It’s either Christ or it isn’t.

I must admit, I often get lost in these postings. I am un-educated and un-studied in many of the deep theologies that come up, but this I get. Thank you, Pastor. The power is in His Word.

Thank you for the comment. Your use of the word “criticise”, to me, is a bit strong. My contention would be, if I were writing the piece, is that the motivating emphasis for preaching the Word is first and foremost simply because it is commanded by God to do so. We need no other reason.

In other words, what Pastor John merely touches on in point #7, should, IMO, be the central tenet of the argument. And by putting the command of God as the primary and sufficent reason for preaching the Word, I would have illustrated how the other 6 points flow from this.

For example, if we submit to God’s command to preach the Word, then the preacher is brought “into direct contact with the mind of the Holy Spirit” (point #2)

Or, when we remember God demands the pure preaching of the Word we are clearly taught, “only that kind of preaching can transform both the preacher and the congregation” (point #6).

And so on. So the only “criticism”, to use your word, I would have, is a matter of emphasis, not content. And, as this website will teach you, in matters of faith and doctrine, sometimes precision is a very critical thing.

Morris

Your first comment: “All of those reasons to preach the Word listed above are well and good, in and of themselves. But, unfortunately they fail to convey the primary purpose for the Christian minister in preaching God’s Word. The main reason, dear reader, we preach the Word is that God tells us too!”

Here you criticise John for failing to convey the primary purpose pastors should preach the Word. Then in your second comment you admit that John did exactly that in point 7, though you say he didn’t do an adequate job of it.

John’s statment in point 7 is certainly concise, but still emphatically states what you first said he failed to do.

Seems to me you’re nitpicking.

Rather, because the church as a whole has succumbed to pragmatism, the Bible and it’s message has been relegated to a back seat in many assemblies. The very authority of the Word is compromised. This is why it is essential to know and understand the principle of preaching the pure Word of God. Modern Christians don’t want demands upon their lives. When we speak in terms of what God commands us to do, often we flinch.

Yet, I firmly believe if we are faithful in meeting our obligation in preaching the Word of God, then many of the other more practical reasons listed above for preaching will fall into place.

Blessings,
David R. McCrory