Phil Johnson has another excellent post on Acts 17. Here are his concluding statements:

But there's no give-and-take exchange of opinions. Paul does not act deferential in the presence of these great minds. He does not assume a false humility and pretend he's just a truth seeker on his own spiritual journey looking for companions along the way. He declares the truth of God to them with authority and conviction. He does not use the conversational style and subdued demeanor most people today think we need to use so that we're not thought arrogant. Paul wasn't arrogant, because he was declaring infallible truth God had revealed. He was not merely floating an opinion of his own for the philosophers to kick around. And he used an appropriate method: a sermon, not a conversation.(emphasis mine)

Here is a thought. Maybe it is actually more arrogant to NOT preach. I ask you what reeks of arrogance? Humbly attempting to unveil and make clear the very revealed words of God to a people, and standing behind his authority, all the while knowing that where you err at precisely that point you have no authority. Or is it more arrogant to sit in a roundtable and "discuss" your ideas about who God is and what He has revealed? Is it more arrogant to stand before God's people and converse without much conviction? Or is it more arrogant to stand before God's people and proclaim with conviction? I personally think the former is the most arrogant. It is rooted in self-confidence and a lack of trusting in the power of God. Brothers let us preach the word with authority and not timidity!

Apparently TULIP's have thorns. At least that seems to be the conclusion reached by many in the "old-guard" of the SBC. Recently 15 Evangelists (why this is BP News I'm not sure) met to discuss the growing movement of Calvinism in the SBC. Apparently its costing them jobs. Tom Ascol responds here. Also, a Christianity Today article was written on the rise of Calvinism within the SBC. Within that article Frank Page (resisting the urge to add an adjective here) commented: "The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible." Timmy Brister responds here. (HT: JT)

Challies Blog Tour reaches Day 10. Today he is interviewed by Jonathan Leeman from Church Matters (the 9Marks blog). He asked these two questions: Tim, from your perspective as a layperson, what steps would you like to see more pastors taking to grow in discernment? And, Are there specific areas of church life and pastoring in which you find yourself wishing pastors would exercise greater discernment? Answers here.

Challies also writes a very good article on considering non-Christians "the enemy". Why do some churches rarely see baptisms? Challies belief is that, "...the real problem in these churches was in their attitude towards the unbeliever. The person next door was the enemy, a person to be feared for what he might do to the family, and the children in particular, and thus someone to be regarded with distrust and suspicion rather than with love."

The Wall Street Journal has ran a very interesting and quite ridiculous article on church discipline. It is, thankfully, making a "comeback" in many churches. It should not come as a surprise that it will start getting attacked by the world and less biblically minded believers. (HT: Denny Burk)

David Heim has a good article on Children's Sermons. (HT: Transforming Sermons)

Phil Johnson, from Pyromaniacs, continues his series on Total Depravity. Here is a snippet: "We are born into this world as thoroughgoing sinners, not merely tainted a little bit by sin, but completely, hopelessly in bondage to it. Every aspect of our being mind, emotions, desires, and even our physical constitution,is corrupted, controlled, and disfigured by sin and its effects. No one escapes from that verdict. We are totally depraved."

Tim Challies continues his blog tour, and today he stops by Justin Taylor's Between Two Worlds. Here is JT's question for Challies: "Having now extensively studied the concept of biblical discernment, I wonder what implications you think this has for “discernment blogging”? In part, I’m thinking of “watchdog” blogs and bloggers that have “discernment” as their primary focus. Speaking generally, what are they doing right, and where do they need correction?" Great question! You can find the answer here.

The Puritan Reading Challenge is fun. Timmy Brister seems to be quite astonished by the "success" of his challenge. It's awesome seeing how many people are on board to read these books of hundreds of years ago. May God be honored through our reading of the Puritans. Today Timmy gives us a few links to others that are blogging on the Puritan Reading Challenge. (I was excited to see Borrowed Light on there). Brister also gives a few cool stats on the Reading Challenge. I can't believe it's only 2559 pages to read everything. Only reading 7 pages a day seems quite an easy task. Understanding all 7 pages might be a little more difficult.

John MacArthur has an excellent post on preaching out of season: From Athens to L.A. His solution? Tell them that God is, who God is, and what God says. Even though that sounds simple that is difficult and loaded. You are encouraged to check out the specifics of this article.

One of my favorite blogs is Pyromaniacs. Often times Dan Phillips will give us a quote or a simple sentence and ask a significant question attached to it. It's great for making us think. Today he asks about an excerpt from a card left on his doorstep. "Faith in Christ can help you resolve personal and family challenges". Dan's question is, "What can you surmise about the church that left this"? Good question, Dan. When you click on the link be certain to check out the comments. It is interesting that many are saying it's Mormon and others are crediting it to various Christian denominations or churches. What does that tell us about "our" gospel presentations if it can barely be distinguished from Mormonism?

Brian Thornton asks, What is the Gospel Good For?

Randy Alcorn has an excellent post on Longings of the Heart.

Have you gotten the e-mail yet? The e-mail to which I am referring is the DON'T WATCH THE GOLDEN COMPASS e-mail. Today Dr. Mohler has addressed the formidable challenge this movie will give to Christians. I love Dr. Mohler's advice that we should not run away from this challenge nor does he feel that boycotting is the answer. I agree with the sending of the e-mail and letting people know what this book is about. The books author is not subtle. He really is attempting to "kill God". My response to that is a tongue in cheek, "good luck". People have tried for centuries to take God off the throne and it's not going to be happening now nor ever. And I am very grateful for that--I tend to love my "oppressive" King. This movie is giving us another opportunity to display the greatness of God compared to the paltry pleasures anything else has to offer. I encourage you to read Mohler's article. He gives great advice and encouragement.

Also today the folks at Pyromaniacs have made an interesting distinction for evangelicals to use. The distinction to be made is between fire-in-the-belly evangelicals and fire-sale evangelicals. A fire-in-the-belly evangelical is defined as, "those gripped with the Biblical vision of God's holiness and man's sinfulness, humbled by their own depravity to the point where inerrancy is not an inconvenient doctrine but God's indispensable lifeline, awed by the atonement of Christ to the extent that its doctrines are neither periphera nor adiaphora, but life itself." The fire-sale evangelicals on the other hand are those that are "'everything-must-go' evangelicals, who will sell out on the cheap. Nothing is too precious to retain, everything is on the auction block, for a pittance."

After reading this article I am forced to admit that in my orthodoxy I am a fire-in-the-belly evangelical. But I am sadly forced to admit that hypocritically in my orthopraxy I inch closer and closer to being a fire-sale evangelical. Jeremiah 23:29 is true whether I believe it or not. God's word is like a fire and like a hammer. I lament that Jeremiah 20:9 is not more true. "If I say, 'I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,' there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot". As I sit here I can shake my head on everything but that last point. I feel the word burning inside me like a fire, and I feel the guilt and weariness of holding it in. My prayer today is that Jesus might so take hold of me and stoke the fire until it burns so hot that I cannot hold it in. May I become like Peter and John who could not help but speak of that which they had seen and heard? Therefore, I am always hoping that my orthodoxy might match my orthopraxy and that both might match the beauty of the gospel!