If it Baal will “defend himself” then how much more our God?  In Judges 6:31 Joash defends Gideon by saying that Baal, if he really is a god, will contend for himself: “Will you contend for Baal?  Or will you save him?  Whoever contends for him shall be put to death by morning.  If he is a god, let him contend for himself, because his altar has been broken down”. 

This is a legitimate question:  What do we communicate about the greatness of God (or Christ) when we come to his defense?  I do not necessarily mean when we proclaim what God has communicated about Himself in the face of opposition or even defending the truth of what God has said against misrepresentation.  What I mean is the feeling that we have to come to God’s defense and protect Him. 

In what way should we defend God?  And in what way might it detract from His greatness? 

What Happened to the 12 Apostles as Proof of Easter; a great article by C. Michael Patton.

What is the significance of the shedding of blood in the atonement? RC Sproul answers.

Tim Challies hits this one out of the park: Evil as Entertainment. Combine this with Steve Camp’s “disclaimer” and you have a really excellent article.

Joe Thorn’s “Note to Self” was a good note for me too.

Sometimes I read the sermons from Geoff Thomas for my own sermon preparation. I was very excited to find this by Colin Adams: Preaching on Preaching.

“World” has a broad range of meanings. John Samson outlines the meaning of “world”. UPDATE: I should mention that he outlines the meaning of the word "world" in the Gospel of John, not the entire NT.

I have not gotten a chance to read this yet but it looks interesting. Michael Patton gives us a primer on Ghosts, or The Christian View of the Supernatural.

Tim Chester continues his discussion of Creating Communities of Grace.

I really like John Piper’s take on his visit to a main-line Protestant church; read it here.

Jay Adams asks, "Is All Help Truly Help?”

Alvin Reid continues his discussion of Towards a Great Commission Resurgence. This time he tackles Convergent Evangelism.

Tonight you can watch the Mars Hill Good Friday service live.

Didn’t know there was a third one of these…if you haven’t seen first 2 you should……but don’t think less of me after you do.

I used to collect comic books.  One of the particular series that I liked was the “What If…” series.  What If…Daredevil Killed the Kingpin?  What If…the Fantastic Four All Had the Same Power?  What If…Kraven the Hunter Had Killed Spider-man?  This past Sunday evening I had the opportunity to preach.  I recycled an Easter sermon from last year:  What If…Jesus Was Not Resurrected.  The text is from 1 Corinthians 15:12-20.  Here are the points and sub-points:

I.  What If…Christ is Not Resurrected?

1. Christian preaching (proclamation) is in vain
2. The faith of Christians is in vain
3. The writers of the New Testament cannot be trusted; they are false witnesses and guilty of misrepresenting God. 
4. Christians, believing they are forgiven, are in fact still in their sins
5. Those that have died have no hope (there is no hope of an after-life)
6. Christians are people to be most pitied

II.  What If…Christ is Resurrected?

1. Christian preaching is NOT in vain
2. The faith of Christians is NOT in vain
3. The writers of the NT are reliable (at least this goes a long way in proving that)
4. The sins of believers has indeed been removed; we have newness of life
5. We do have hope of an after-life
6. Rather than being pitied believers have hope and meaning in their lives

The resurrection is vital to our faith.  It is worth noting that what is being addressed in Corinth is not a denial of the resurrection of Jesus but resurrection altogether.  Even so, to deny the resurrection is to deny the Christian faith. 

Came across this quote by bible commentator R.C.H. Lenski while reading a MacArthur sermon:

Cure selfishness and you've just replanted the Garden of Eden.

As we know the only cure for selfishness is the work of Christ alongside the inner working of the Holy Spirit.  Thankfully, some day selfishness will be cured and the Garden of Eden will be “replanted”.  May the Lord work in our hearts to root out selfishness. 

It is worth noting that in Ephesians 4 Paul focuses on unity within the body before he focuses on our relationship with those outside the body. Ephesians 4:1 serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. Everything Paul says after this statement flows out of “living lives worthy of the calling by which we have been called.” The call of Ephesians 4:1 is to live in such a way that you accurately represent what God has done in your life. What he has done in principle we are to live in practice. 4:2-6:20 is what that statement looks like in practice.

In 4:2-16 Paul focuses on walking in unity. In 4:17-24 he focuses on walking differently than we once walked (or even in the present to walk differently than those outside the body). I do not think it is an accident that Paul focuses on relationships within before he focuses on our relationship with the outside world.

In other words, if you look different from the world but you aren’t in unity with your brothers and sisters in Christ then you aren’t really walking in a manner worthy of the calling. Jesus died to redeem our relationship with him but also to redeem our relationship with one another. Relationships and unity within the body is not an option.

Recently Trevin Wax shares an illustration given by Matt Chandler at the Desiring God conference. It is an excellent demonstration of the difference between moralism and the gospel:

During my freshman year of college, I sat next to a 26-year-old single mother trying to get her degree. We began a dialogue about the grace and mercy of Christ in the cross. Some other guys and I would go over and babysit her child and try to talk with her. A friend of mine was in a band playing in the area and we invited her to hear him. She agreed. She thought it would be a concert. I knew better. It was shady and she agreed to come.

The minister got up and said, “Today I want to talk to you about sex.” And I immediately thought, Uh oh. He took a red rose, smelled it, showed how pretty it was. Then, threw it out in the crowd and told them to smell the rose. “I want you to smell it and touch it and feel the texture in it.” (There were about 1000 people there.) He then began one of the worst, most horrific handlings of what sex is and isn’t that I ever sat through. It was fear-mongering at its best.

I’m thinking, with Kim beside me, What are you doing? As he wrapped up, he asked, “Where’s my rose?”

Some kid brought the rose back and it was broken. The petals were broken. And he lifts it up. And his big crescendo is to lift up that broken rose and say, “Now who would want this?”

Anger welled up within me and I wanted to say, “JESUS WANTS THE ROSE! That’s the point of the gospel! That Jesus wants the rose. That he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

I can share from personal experience how unhelpful such illustrations are to those that have messed up sexually. Before coming to Christ, and even after, I struggled with sexual immorality. Maybe that’s putting it too nicely; I’ll just say it…I was sexually immoral. After coming to Christ I remember many of these illustrations.

One such illustration involved chocolate cake. We had a delicious piece of chocolate cake (I guess it was delicious I don’t like chocolate caked). The first person took a bite and we began passing around the cake. Finally, when the cake had been around the circle for a little while the leader commented on how disgusting the cake was. And this is how we are when we give ourselves away sexually. And you know there is a good point in there somewhere. But what was communicated to me; one that had messed up? “You are no longer good for anything in this area of your life, nobody wants you, you are disgusting, you’ve blown it”. Redemption and the love and restorative power of Jesus were not what I was driven to. Instead I was driven to despair—which alongside pride is the only destination for moralism.

So, long before Matt Chandler shared this argument, I have been intentional in how I speak about sexual immorality. I know from experience what it feels like to be that “rose nobody wants anymore”. I do not use such illustrations. I do speak of the damage that sexual immorality does and encourage teenagers to make biblical decisions. But I do not do so apart from the redemptive power of Jesus. I also am careful to remind those that are sexually pure that such a state will remain only through the grace of God. So, I am very thankful that Jesus still wants that rose.

Pastor be careful how you speak on such things. Not just about sexual immorality but abortion, homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, and those other “big sins” that we forbid. Be sure to preach boldly on such things but do so to point to the redemptive power of Jesus and not to make us better people.

UPDATE: The great people at DG have now isolated this part of Matt's sermon--watch it here:

(HT: Abraham)

In his book, The God I Don't Understand , Christopher Wright suggests a change to the lyrics of Stuart Townend’s hymn “In Christ Alone”. Wright suggests that it be modified to capture the greater biblical fullness of meaning (132-133).  The original lyric is:

“…till on that cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied.

Wright suggests that it be changed to:

...till on that cross as Jesus died God's wrath and love were satisfied"

I disagree with Wright’s suggestion.  I understand that his hope is to recover the idea that God’s wrath and God’s love are “intrinsically connected to one another” (130).  However, I think this change to the lyric would be a tad confusing.  Satisfaction is a propitiation term.  In Townend’s lyric is has to do with the permanency of the wrath of God being removed from us by the cross of Christ; it speaks of finality.  To say that love is “satisfied” in the same context that you are speaking of wrath being “satisfied” would either lower what is meant by wrath being fully taken away or lower the eternal nature of love.  Love is eternal and to speak of it as being “satisfied” in the same way that we speak of wrath being “satisfied” is confusing at best. 

What do you think?