Most exciting play in baseball

The steal of home is the most exciting play in baseball to watch. This one is even better for a few reasons:

1. It happened against the Yankees. I love watching the Yankees get burned. Watch the looks on the Yankess faces: Andy Pettite (pitcher), Jorge Posada (catcher) and Joe Girardi (manager).

2. It happened in the top rivalry game. Out of all teams that stole home against the Yankees, I'm glad it was Boston (Jacoby Ellsbury).

3. It happened IN Boston. Listen to the sound of the crowd grow as they collectively saw the runner at third begin the steal.

4. It happened in a nationally broadcast game - the whole country saw.

5. It happened with the best announcer in baseball on the call - Jon Miller communicated the excitement of the play.

Cameron's first writing

200th post today

I think this is pretty cool: My daughter suddenly decided to start writing on her own. She is so stubborn and would never really try - and then... one day she tries it out. Here is her first effort:

Matt Foley, Motivational Speaker

Hey parents: Ever run out of disciplinary ideas? Try hiring Matt Foley, Motivational Speaker! (If anyone reading is in their mid-thirties, you'll remember how funny this was back in college.)

Witness

In my sermon today I quickly compared what the gospel presentation was like in Acts to what it had become in some circles today (God has a wonderful plan for your life).

I was perusing Desiring God blog today and ran across this failed gospel tract:

1994 Tom Brokaw on the coming "Internet"

This little news video from 1994 is pretty fascinating... trying to report about this new thing called the internet. Enjoy:

Jonah - Part 2

Jesus told His disciples, just before He ascended, these now familiar words (Acts 1:8):

"you will be my witnesses (martyrs) both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth"

Ah, those dreadful Samaritans. But let's remember what happened on their journey to Jerusalem only about 2 months prior (Luke 9:51-56). When the days were approaching for His ascension, Jesus and the twelve traveled to Jerusalem, through Samaria where they were not received. John and James volunteered to command fire to come from heaven and consume those ungrateful Samaritans!

And now... we are to go love them and testify to them about the resurrection for their salvation?

I wonder how much John and James battled "Jonah Syndrome"?
(Compare to Jonah 3:9-4:4)

• John and James preach to the Samaritans, positive those pagans would reject them, and they could walk away satisfied in the coming judgment of Samaria.
• The Samaritans repent and God relents and forgives. Samaritans are now brothers to John and James.
• But it greatly displeased John and James and they became angry.
• John and James pray: "We didn't want to come here because we knew you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness. Therefore take our lives. It is better that we are dead."
• God replies: "Do you have good reason to be angry?"

And so it was that many Jews could not tolerate the inclusion of those wicked Gentiles - certainly the Spirit could not dwell in them. And by this rejection, they tragically looked beyond the filth of their own stain. May we never underestimate the depth of our wickedness.

Cadbury Eggs and the cost of discipleship

Cadbury Eggs - people either love em or hate em. It's no coincidence these candies are only sold around the resurrection of Jesus - these candies are a picture of following Jesus. In fact, the Cadbury Egg IS Jesus! Open up the wrapper and what do you find on the chocolate? The Bethlehem star of course. And don't get me started on things Trinitarian!

The people who love the Cadbury are a part of the few - narrow is the road that leads to righteousness and only a few find it. The people who love the Cadbury look at it as a beautiful candy. It is a privilege to have the Cadbury dwelling within them.

The people who hate the Cadbury see the candy as an offense. They stumble over the idea of eating it - and they stumble with those who are called to eat it. The people who hate the Cadbury see the candy as too much - they cannot handle the flavor. They like the idea of candy, but cannot handle the ultimate candy.

Do not think the Cadbury came to bring peace - no, Cadbury came to divide - husband against wife, fathers against sons.

You cannot call the Cadbury simply a "good" candy. The Cadbury must either be the best or it is insane, of the devil.

But I am not ashamed of the Cadbury! I love the Cadbury will all my heart, soul, mind, and strength! And I have counted the cost - I know I may be mocked. After all, the Cadbury said, "If they persecute me, they will persecute those who eat me."

And no, this is not a religion. Religion is man's attempt to find candy, but this is the Cadbury calling me to be an eater. What a privilege! And so it is no burden to preach this witness to the world. And if you mock me, I will count it a privilege to be worthy of suffering shame for the name of Cadbury.

Politically incorrect David

After David received confirmation of Uriah's death [David sent Uriah to the front lines to be killed in order to make Bathsheba an available widow (actually he was sent right below a city wall only to be easily slaughtered by archers from above in the likes of Abimelech - see 2 Samuel 11:20-22 and Judges 9:50)], David sent this message back to Joab at the battle:

(2 Samuel 11:25) Thus you shall say to Joab: "Do not let this thing displease
you for the sword devours one as well as another..."

There are so many problems with this statement beginning with David continuing to cover up his tracks by making Uriah's death to somehow seem coincidental.

But can you imagine an American president declaring to his 21st century citizens after a soldier had died, referring to the death as just another statistic:
"Well, bombs kill one as well as another...what are you gonna do?"
That may be the last declaration that president ever made.

Chandler: Jesus wants the rose

Matt Chandler spoke at the Desiring God pastors conference on "Preaching the gospel to your unregenerate sheep". Chandler is a pastor in the Dallas area, and in the "Bible Belt" churches are filled with unsaved people who have been vaccinated with the gospel and seemingly do not have ears to hear. Probably not much different anywhere else.

Chandler is a guy a respect deeply. He is an evangelist at heart and he cares for the truth of the gospel. Before becoming a pastor, he struggled with the local church describing it as "an enemy of conversion" at times.

Here is a 3 minute blurb from his proclamation at the conference:
Click here to watch, read notes, or listen to the whole sermon.

Post Eve-sin / Pre Adam-sin

Here are some thoughts coming from reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15... Paul explaining why he does not permit a woman to exercise authority over a man. His reasons goes back to creation:
a. The man was created first - it matters who was created first.
b. The woman sinned first - it matters who sinned first.

According to this text, Adam and Eve did not sin simultaneously. One was in sin before the other.

So it got me to thinking, what was the world like in those few moments after Eve sinned but before Adam sinned? Eve ate the fruit - sin is now in the world. She offers Adam the fruit and Adam has a moment of temptation - he can resist, but he would ultimately sin.

But what would have happened if Adam resisted? Remember their state. I've heard it said that while I, having a sin nature, am "unable to not sin," Adam and Eve, created in perfection, were "able to not sin" (while also "able to sin"). So in this brief moment, Eve now possesses a sin nature but Adam is still sinless.

So when Eve sinned, bringing sin into the world, was Adam helpless at that moment? Was Adam now no longer "able to not sin"? While it may have been theoretically possible for Adam to remain sinless, was it now theoretically impossible, because Eve brought sin into the world? And if Adam was still capable of not sinning, can we imagine a scenario where Eve is given the curse, cast out of the garden, and condemned to death, while Adam is not cursed, remains in the garden, with the potential of eternal life? Or did the sin of one condemn the other? (It's funny how men today blame women for sin, and women strike back by saying "the man sinned also" - maybe the man had no choice! :) )

But we shouldn't forget... sin was already in the world before sin entered the world! The crafty serpent, the devil, was a liar, was manifested in physical form and existed in this sinless garden...which makes me think, any created being who is "able to sin" and "able not to sin" WILL sin because of the fact that they are NOT divine, they are not Creator. And the only way a created being will never be "able to sin" is if the ability has supernaturally been removed, i.e. angels or the church in heaven and on the new earth.

When did the Disciples receive the Holy Spirit?

Consider the following texts:

John 20:21-23 (very shortly after the resurrection, perhaps the night of the resurrection):
...and when He (Jesus) had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Acts 1:4-5 (likely just before the ascension of Jesus):
...but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

Acts 2:1-4 (the day of Pentecost):
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit...

So most would say the apostles did not receive the Spirit until Pentecost. So what was happening on Easter evening when Jesus breathed on them and said "receive the Spirit"?

• Does this language suggest the disciples actually received the Spirit at this moment?
• If not, what was the "breathing" on them by Jesus?
• Did they temporarily receive the Spirit on Easter night for a specific purpose and then permanently gain the Spirit at Pentecost?

Interpreting Hebrews 13:17

We got a chuckle in the office after talking about the interpretation of Hebrews 13:17 (I bolded the words in question):

Obey you leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you. (NASB Updated Edition)

So the discussion was based on this question: What is the antecedent to the pronoun "this"? In other words, what should the church let their leaders do with joy?
Keep watch over their souls with joy?
or...
Give the account with joy?

Honestly I always thought it referred to the keeping watch over souls. I never even considered another option... that is until I heard my dad say that it referred to the giving of the account - he had never considered another option.

Inductive Bible Study rules say that when the antecedent to a pronoun is in doubt, nearest is best. In this case, it would refer to the giving of the account. But is the antecedent in doubt? It is to some.

Consider the following translations:

The NIV clearly thinks the antecedent is "watch over the souls":

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

The Living Bible clearly thinks the antecedent is "give an account":

Obey your spiritual leaders and be willing to do what they say. For their work is to watch over your souls, and God will judge them on how well they do this. Give them reason to report joyfully about you to the Lord and not with sorrow, for then you will suffer for it too.

Good stuff!