In this entire sermon Maclaren does little else but answer the question, "What does this passage mean?" In explaining it, he applies it. In one major way Maclaren's sermon could have been stronger. In his introduction, he could have done more to show his listeners why they needed to understand this passage. Aside from not understanding it (which is a need, but not a strong one), a modern audience would wonder, "Why bring this up?"

One other thing is essential in a sermon about an idea explained: your introduction is crucial to its success. You must find a need for the explanation. This sermon form works only if you scratch your people where they itch. No one listens to instructions on how to make a souffle if he or she has never even boiled an egg.

A Proposition to Be Proved

Deductive sermons take other forms, however, and sometimes an idea requires not explanation but proof. When this is the case, the idea appears in the introduction as a proposition you will defend. Because your stance as a preacher resembles that of a debater, your points become reasons or proofs for your idea. You're answering the developmental questions, "Is that true?" and "Why should I believe it?"

An example of a sermon in which a proposition is proved can be taken from 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, where Paul argues for the resurrection of the body. In the context Paul has contended that the Corinthians cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead and continue to maintain that there is no such thing as resurrection. A sermon from verses 12-19 will defend the proposition, "The Christian faith is worthless unless Christians rise from the dead." The preacher aims to convince the hearers that the doctrine of resurrection lies at the center of Christianity. The idea is stated in the introduction, and the major points defend it as a series of arguments. In outline form the sermon would look like this:

I. If Christians do not rise, the Christian faith lacks valid content (vv. 12-14).

A. If the dead do not rise, it follows that Christ did not rise.

B. If Christ did not rise, then the gospel is a delusion.

C. If the gospel is a delusion, then our faith in that gospel has no substance.

(A second reason why the Christian faith is worthless unless Christians rise ...)

II. If Christians do not rise, the apostles are despicable liars (v. 15).

A. Since the apostles all preached the resurrection of Jesus, which could not have taken place if there is no resurrection, then they are "'false witnesses."

B. They are guilty of the worst kind of falsehood, since they gave false testimony about God, whom they claimed raised Jesus from the dead.

(A third argument why the Christian faith is worthless unless Christians rise ...)

III. If Christians do not rise, then the Christian faith is futile (vv. 16-17).

A. If Christ's resurrection did not happen, which would be the case if there is no resurrection of the dead, then the effects ascribed to it are not valid.

B. Christians therefore are still dead in their sins. A dead Savior is no Savior at all.