Albert Mohler in his book, He is Not Silent in Chapter 3 “Preaching is Expository: A Theology of Exposition" contends that our view of God's revelation in His Word will be reflected in our preaching. If we possess a low view of revelation then our preaching will not have much or any theology in it. If we have a low view of the doctrine of revelation, then in our preaching we will preach “pop psychology and culture, or we will tell compelling stories." We preach the theology of a passage because it is God's authoritative Word that is life changing.
In the Argumentation step, we expose the theology of the text.
We continue our discussion of the rhetorical processes or what Donald R. Sunukjian calls the developmental questions. John A. Broadus in his classic, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, described these forms of discourse for preaching in 1870. The most commonly used version of Broadus is the 1944 edition, edited by Weatherspoon. Gary Chapman says we should read dead people. Well, here is one dead person we should read.
“Preaching is inherently a form of rhetoric. Rhetoric is designed to influence others. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.”
“These four rhetorical questions appeal to the whole person to whom we are preaching.
1. Explanation appeals to the intellect.
2. Argumentation appeals to the reason.
3. Illustration appeals to the imagination
4. Application appeals to the volition” (Wayne McDill, 12 Essential Skills for Great Preaching, Nashville: B&H, 2006, 119, 126, 127).
So far we have discussed four of the seven steps in preparing a sermon:
Step One: Choose the Passage
Step Two: Study the Passage
Step Three: Choose the Main Point of the Sermon
Step Four: Construct the Sermon Outline or the Divisions
Step Five: Develop the Sermon Outline with the four rhetorical processes: Explanation, Argumentation of explanation, Illustration, Application (and argumentation of application)
This is what the four rhetorical processes look like in a sermon:
I. The Sealing of the Holy Spirit happens after we hear God’s Word (v. 13a)
You get your paragraphs for a manuscript sermon under the rhetorical processes.
A. Explanation. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s question, “What does the verse that you just read mean?”
B. Argumentation. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s next question, “How do you know that is the meaning?”
C. Illustration. Hopefully, your congregation is engaged and asks this question, “What does this look like?” “Can you give me a concrete example?”
D. Application. This rhetorical process answers your congregation’s question, “What does this have to do with my life?”
II. The Sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place when we believe (v. 13b)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
III. The Sealing of the Holy Spirit guarantees our future redemption (v. 14a)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
IV. The Sealing of the Holy Spirit should cause us to praise God (v. 14b)
Repeat the four rhetorical processes under each main division.
The rhetorical process (or the developmental question) called Explanation answers this question your listeners are asking while you are preaching, “What do these verses mean that he just read?” We discussed this rhetorical process in Step 5, Part 1 Explanation.
Jerry Vines and Jim Shaddix make a great point that many Homileticans also stress: Consequently, explanation is the most important of all the functional elements. In one respect, the other functional elements—argumentation, application, and illustration—are servants of explanation. These other elements all hinge on a proper understanding of truth. You are able to argue a point only after the facts are understood rightly. You can apply to the life only that which is properly comprehended. You never just illustrate; you illustrate something, and that something is a right understanding of God’s truth (Jerry Vines; JimShaddix, Power in the Pulpit, Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition, 2017, 219).
So argumentation is based on an accurate explanation.
The rhetorical process called Argumentation of the explanation answers the question, “Why should I believe this Biblical explanation?” Later, we will discuss the argumentation of the application.
Under the Argumentation of the explanation, you could bring in the theology found in the text. For example, if you are explaining the deity of Christ in human “form” in Philippians 2:6, for argumentation you could support your explanation by referring to Paul’s similar Christology in Colossians 2:9: “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” When explaining a text, think of systematic theology for argumentation. This takes place in the form of cross-references.
Paul is always supporting his New Testament truth with Old Testament quotations or theology. For example, in Romans 3 Paul discusses imputation by faith and not by works of the law (3:21). In Romans 4, Paul buttresses this same truth with theology found in the Old Testament: "And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord and it was counted unto righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). This is how we inject theology into our preaching.
Jerry Vines and Jim Shaddix discuss Argumentation in chapter seven of Power in the Pulpit. In developing argumentation, they suggest, you ask “What assertion(s) won’t my audience immediately agree with?” (p. 221).
Argumentation is anticipating objections that our listeners will raise and then answering them
Warren Wiersbe recalled sharing in a street meeting in Chicago and passing out tracts at the corner of Madison and Kedzie. Most of the people graciously accepted the tracts, but one man took the tract and with a snarl crumpled it up and threw it in the gutter. The name of the tract was “Four Things God Wants You to Know.”
“There are a few things I would like God to know!” the man said. “Why is there so much sorrow and tragedy in this world? Why do the innocent suffer while the rich go free? Bah! Don’t tell me there’s a God! If there is, then God is the biggest sinner that ever lived!” And he turned away with a sneer and was lost in the crowd (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996, Ro 9:19). The Israelites had similar objections concerning God, which Paul addresses in Romans 9-11.
The theme of Romans is The Righteousness of God Through the Gospel (1:16-17)
1. The Righteousness of God is needed in Romans 1:18-3:20 (The doctrine of Sin)
2. The Righteousness of God is declared by faith in Romans 3:21-5:21 (The Doctrine of Justification)
3. The Righteousness of God is imparted in Romans 6:1-8:39 (The Doctrine of Sanctification)
4. The Righteousness of God is defended in Romans 9-11 (The Doctrine of Theodicy)
In Romans 9-11, Paul is answering the objections the Jews were raising in light of all their suffering. That objection is recorded in Romans 11:1: “Has God cast away His people?” These Jews were attacking God’s righteousness. In answering that question, Paul discusses three truths about Israel.
1. In the Past, God elected Israel (Romans 9).
2. Today, God has set Israel aside temporarily because Israel is rejected their Messiah (Romans 10).
3. In the Future, God will save Israel (Romans 11).
Why does Paul write three chapters on Israel in Romans to defend God’s righteousness?
The first is a doctrinal reason. Because the Jews are accusing God of not being faithful to His promises to His chosen people. Paul must argue for God’s righteousness. A defense of God’s righteousness is called a theodicy. In chapter 8, Paul wrote convincingly that nothing will separate the believer from the love of God, but now it looks like Israel has been separated from God’s love. In the Old Testament, Israel was God’s chosen people whom He loved (Hosea 11), and now they were separated. Paul is defending God’s righteousness in setting Israel aside temporarily (11:25-26). If God had separated permanently from the Old Testament people of God, why could He not separate from the New Testament people of God?
The second reason for devoting three chapters to defend God’s righteousness is a practical reason.
Paul was considered a traitor to the Jews. The Judas of Judaism. Paul is the apostle to the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7). The Gentiles are the focus of Paul’s ministry. Paul had preached that we “are not under the Mosaic Law” (Rom 6:14). More Gentiles are responding to Paul than Jews. Before his salvation, Saul of Tarsus was the enemy and persecutor of the church. Now he is the church’s most powerful advocate and witness.
Paul begins with God’s past election of Israel to convince the Jews that God is righteous in his dealings with Israel and that Israel will not be unelected and cast away. Before Paul jumps into the doctrine of election, however, he will convince Israel that he is no traitor. As a matter of fact, he loves Israel, his own nationality more than any other people on earth (Rom 9:1-3).
As usual with Paul, he seldom writes of God’s sovereignty without mentioning human responsibility. Believers have a human responsibility to be burdened for the unsaved (9:1-3). Next, Paul discusses God’s sovereignty in electing His people in the Old Testament (9:4-29).
After enumerating the blessings for the elect in 9:4-5, Paul discusses, first what the basis for election is not.
The basis is not physical birth (9:6-9) as Isaac and Ishmael illustrate. Paul used these Old Testament characters to support his argumentation. Ishmael was the firstborn, but God chose Isaac. Ishmael was a descendant of Abraham but not the promised son. All of the physical descendants of Abraham are not the children of God, only those who are believers. Matthew Henry accurately wrote, “Grace does not run in blood.” God did not choose you and me because our last name was Zuckerberg, Gates, or Musk.
Election also is not based on works (9:10-13) as Jacob and Esau reveal. Paul again employed the Old Testament to argue his point. If election were based on works, God would not have chosen Jacob, who was a liar and a deceiver. Paul used Malachi 1:2-3 as his cross reference in Romans 9:13. “As to ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,’ a woman once said to Mr. Spurgeon, ‘I cannot understand why God should say that He hated Esau.’ ‘That,’ Spurgeon replied, ‘is not my difficulty, madam. My trouble is to understand how God could love Jacob!”
Now Paul argues what is the basis of election (9:14-29). Paul raised two objections he knew his Jewish opponents would raise and then he argued his basis of election.
The first objection is worded in 9:14: Is God righteous in choosing or not choosing?
Paul gives two examples in his argumentation. Notice that Paul gives cross-references in his argumentation. The first example is Israel in Exodus 32. God was merciful to kill only 3,000 when all were guilty. The second example is the hardening of Pharaoh in Exodus 9. This hardening process is referred to at least fifteen times in Exodus 7–14. Sometimes we are told that Pharaoh hardened his heart (Ex. 8:15, 19, 32), and other times that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27). By declaring His Word and revealing His power, God gave Pharaoh the opportunity to repent; but instead, Pharaoh resisted God and hardened his heart. The fault lay not with God but with Pharaoh. The same sunlight that melts the ice also hardens the clay. God was not unrighteous in His dealings with Pharaoh nor Israel because He gave both many opportunities to repent and believe (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996, Ro 9:14).
The second objection is stated in Romans 9:19: Is man responsible?
First, Paul answers, that man is responsible and should not argue with God (9:19-21). The Bible Knowledge Commentary phrases this objection: “If God makes choices, how can He hold man responsible? Who can go against what He does?” Paul does not answer the way we would: “Stop back talking God and accusing Him of wrong.” The clay does not argue with the potter.
Next, Paul answers the second objection “Is man responsible?” by declaring that man is responsible and chooses his destiny (9:22-24). The sinner prepares himself for God’s wrath (9:22). Whether you take the perfect participle as reflexive (“prepared themselves”) or passive (“were prepared”) the sinner who rejects Christ has prepared himself for the consequence of that rejection which is God’s wrath.
Here are Net.bible notes on Romans 9:22 which argues for the passive:
tn Or possibly “objects of wrath that have fit themselves for destruction.” The form of the participle could be taken either as a passive or middle (reflexive). ExSyn 417-18 [Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] argues strongly for the passive sense (which is followed in the translation), stating that “the middle view has little to commend it.” First, καταρτίζω (katartizō) is nowhere else used in the NT as a direct or reflexive middle (a usage which, in any event, is quite rare in the NT). Second, the lexical force of this verb, coupled with the perfect tense, suggests something of a “done deal” (against some commentaries that see these vessels as ready for destruction yet still able to avert disaster). Third, the potter-clay motif seems to have one point: The potter prepares the clay.
Even if the participle is passive (“the objects of wrath were prepared for wrath”), the sinners are prepared for wrath because like Pharaoh, they rejected God’s merciful invitations.
Also, God prepares the believer for heaven (9:24). Today we believers are vessels of mercy (9:24). This was prophesied in the OT (9:25-29).
This section on the sovereignty of God in electing His people (9:4-29) is bookended with human responsibility.
First, the believer has the human responsibility to be burdened for the unsaved (9:1-3).
Next, the sinner also has the necessity to believe (9:30-33).
Where does Argumentation go in your sermon? It goes under Explanation. This is where you get your paragraphs for your manuscript sermon. You should have a paragraph or two for Explanation and you should have a paragraph for Argumentation with systematic theology in the form of cross-references and some explanation showing how your cross-reference supports your Explanation.
We have the Apostle Paul as our example of the importance of argumentation.