In a conversation with a friend recently, the topic of practical application came up. We talked about the relationship and balance between preaching the interpretation (What does it mean?) of the passage and preaching the application (What do I do?) of the passage. I like this article by John MacArthur published on Pulpit Magazine's blog. I think the main point is that the interpretation IS the application. The original article is located here.

What Does This Verse Mean “to Me”?

September 5th, 2006

(By John MacArthur) 

That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Early in my ministry, I made a conscious commitment to biblical preaching. My first priority has always been to answer the question, “What does this passage mean?” After I’ve explained as clearly and accurately as possible the meaning of God’s Word, then I exhort people to obey and apply it to their own lives.

The Bible speaks for itself to the human heart; it is not my role as a preacher to try to tailor the message. That’s why I preach my way through entire books of the Bible, dealing carefully with each verse and phrase–even though that occasionally means spending time in passages that don’t readily lend themselves to anecdotal or motivational messages.

I am grateful to the Lord for the way He has used this expository approach in our church and in the lives of our radio listeners.

But now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

Wait a minute. Is that wise counsel? No it is not.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

No discipline is more sorely needed in the contemporary church than expositional biblical teaching. Too many have bought the lie that doctrine is something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily life.

It is in vogue to substitute psychology and spoon-fed application for doctrinal substance, while demeaning theological and expositional ministry.

But the pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principles. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word.

There are only three options: We teach truth, error, or nothing at all.

Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.

Romans provides the clearest biblical example. Paul didn’t give any exhortation until he had given eleven chapters of theology.

He scaled incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

Then in chapter 12, he turned immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility to the truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2. There, building on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship–giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.

Paul followed the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message came first. Upon that foundation he built the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Rom. 12:1; Gal. 5:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 2:1) or then (Col. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:1).

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it.

Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory.

The nucleus of all that is truly practical is sown up in the teaching of Scripture. We don’t make the Bible relevant; it is inherently so, simply because it is God’s Word. And after all, how can anything God says be irrelevant?

 

This is John Piper's response to the bridge that collapsed a couple days ago. It's worthy of reading to the end. I have found this response to be the grounding factor in all of life's "unexplainable" events- the  Sovereignty of God.

Please take a moment to pray like Piper's daughter for those around this world who blame God for events like this.

Welcome home team,

I am eagerly anticipating the debriefing of your mission, in the freedom of speech we enjoy.

If you didn't notice, the link to the Blog for the second China Team is in the left hand column under "Places to Go, People to Read."

It seems like the talk of the town is the future of those "career" age people who attend the college fellowship called FOCUS at our church. Most of you who are reading are aware of the situation. In about a month, we will have no bible study to attend anymore (aimed at our age group).

So what do we do now? What is our future in organized fellowship and bible study? I've heard PLENTY of ideas out there, and I'd like to open things up to see if you have anything else to share. What should we do after we leave FOCUS? What does the next group look like?

The Question:

Name an action/good work rejoiced over in Scripture, even when it is performed with IMPURE motives.

The Answer:

Preaching the Gospel (Phil 1.12-20)

This is a continuation of the thoughts mentioned in "RE: Yahweh..." regarding the firm claim by Yahweh.com that people are going to hell for breaking the Law.

The following statement comes from a man who walked in obedience to the Law. In his own words, compared against the Law, he would be found blameless:
 

This was my response to an article excerpt posted on Isaiah's blog. Please recognize that my response is at the article and not Isaiah. The excerpt is posted on his blog here. The article can be found in it's entirety at http://www.yahweh.com/GWBuffalo/GWB.htm. You need only to read the excerpt to understand my reply. To understand the weird spelling and vocabulary used in the article read www.yahweh.com.

Reply starts here:

Who are they arguing against? They never state it. Who are "those" preachers that preach "breaking the laws of Yahweh"?

Read their quote: "The Savior's own words show that He will deny anyone who practices breaking Yahweh's Laws—commits iniquity." 

Is that what this passage is saying given its context? Was not the whole point of "Yahweh's Law" given to show men that they can NOT obey it? Was that NOT the problem with the Pharisees who were main targets in this Sermon on the Mount? What about Galatians 3.24 which says the law was our tutor (Gk. pedagogue) to lead us to Christ, but now that faith has come, we are not longer under a tutor?

This NOT to say that we are to disregard the Law, but this article states (by the quote mentioned) that Christ will deny anyone who practices breaking Yahweh's laws. NO. Christ will deny those whom HE DOES NOT KNOW. There are people doing all these righteous deeds in Jesus' name, and they think they know Him (Notice their claim in Matt 7.22). But He does not know them. So then, their law-abiding, is counted LAWLESSNESS, because they are WITHOUT CHRIST. How do we know they think they are righteous? 1) They are performing these things in Christ's name, and 2) They are actually using this as an ARGUMENT at their JUDGMENT! Standing before Christ in His glory, they really do believe in their own righteousness.

The point this article is missing: You can obey the Law all you want, but if Christ does not know you, your righteousness is really lawlessness, and you're going to hell.
["You" is a general word here; I'm not directing it at you, the reader] The necessity is Christ, not the Law.

I support holding people accountable for sin, and the inevitability for justifying faith to evidence itself in a changed life (i.e. works; James 2) I strongly disagree with the emphasis in this article on BEHAVIOR (sprouting from a weak treatment of the text in Matthew 7 as well as others in the whole article).
"[...] Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (1 Sam. 16.7)

This is a true story:

Today, I ate at MacDonalds on my lunch break. As I sat there, chomping on nuggets and fries, and sipping a diet coke, reading my word, I was interrupted by a young lady talking loudly on her cel phone directly behind me:

"Yeah! He's gonna be here! I was thinking maybe [billy] and [jacob] might want to come. It's going to be so exciting! Maybe we can call our girlfriends _____ and ______. Yeah! I'm looking at the posted right now- Ronald MacDonald is going to be here Friday at 1:30pm."

That may not sound shocking to you, but it shocked me. Friends, somebody better slap me hard if I ever get excited about bringing my child to meet Ronald MacDonald! Out of all the things that this young lady could possibly get excited about, why was it Ronald!?

I'm still pondering the reason God had me hear that. What do I get excited about? Do some of the things I cherish seem like Ronald MacDonald to God, in that they are so little compared to His greatness?