Preaching Texts Fall 09- Spring 2010

If the text is emboldened that is the text that we will be preaching on.  You’ll notice we are taking a break from our Philippians study for a few weeks but we will pick it up in the new year. 

SERMON SERIES:  Philippians Part I

Sept 13^th  :  Phil 1. 1-11; Psalm 116, Mark 8. 27-38

Sept 20^th  :  Phil 1.12-18; Psalm 54, Mark 9.30-37

Sept 27^th        Phil 1.18b-21; Psalm 19, Mark 9.38-48

Oct 4^th       :  Phil 1.21-26; Psalm 8, Mark 10.2-9

Oct 11^th   :  Phil 1.27-30; Psalm 90, Mark 10.17-31

Oct 18^th    :  Phil 2.1-11; Psalm 91, Mark 10.35-45

Oct 25^th   :  Phil 2.5-11; Psalm 13, Mark 10.46-52

Nov 1^st     :  Phil 2.12-18; Psalm 149, Matt 5.1-12

Nov 8^th     :  Phil 2. 19-24; Psalm 146, Mark 12.38-44

Nov 15^th   :  Phil 2.25-30; Psalm 16, Mark 13.14-23

Nov 22^nd  :  Phil 1.6-7, 29-30; Psalm 93, John 18.33-37

Sermon Series:  The Lordship of Christ

Nov 29^th :   Luke 21.25-36; Psalm 50, 1 Thess 3.9-15, Zech 14.4-9

Dec 6^th   :   Luke 3.1-6, Psalm 126, Amos 9.11-15

Dec 13^th :   Luke 3.7-18, Psalm 85, Isa 12.2-6

Dec 20^th :   Luke 1.39-56, Psalm 80, Heb 10.5-10, Micah 5.2-4

Dec 24^th :  Isa 9.2-7, Psalm 96, Titus 2.11-14, Luke 2.1-20

Dec 25^th :  Isa 52.7-10, Psalm 98, Heb 1.1-12, John 1.1-14

Dec 27^th :  Isa 61.10-62.3, Psalm 147, Gal 3.23-29, John 1.1-18

Jan 3^rd    :  Jer 31.7-14, Psalm 84, Matt 2.1-12

SERMON SERIES:  Philippians Part II

Jan 10^th :  Phil 3.1-10, Luke 3.15-22, Psalm 89.1-29

Jan 17^th :  Phil 3.8-16, John 2.1-11, Psalm 96

Jan 24^th :  Phil 3.14-4.1, Luke 4.14-21, Psalm 113

Jan 31^st :  Phil 4.2-9, Luke 4.21-32, Psalm 71

Feb 7^th  :  Phil 4.10-20, Luke 5.1-11, Psalm 85

Feb 14^th:  Phil 4.21-23, Luke 9.28-36, Psalm 99

SERMON SERIES:  Renewing the Spirit in the Word of Christ

Feb 21^th :  Deut 26.1-11, Psalm 91, Rom 10.5-13, Luke 4.1-13

Feb 28^th :  Gen 15.1-18, Luke 13.22-36, Psalm 27,

Mar 7^th :   Josh 24.14-25, Luke 13.1-9, Psalm 103

Mar 14^th :  Hez 29.3-11, Luke 15.11-32, Psalm 34

Mar 21^st :  Isa 43.16-21, Psalm 126, Luke 20.9-19

 ^{PALM SUNDAY AND EASTER WEEK}

March 28^th :  Luke 22.39-23,56; Psalm 22.1-21, Isa 45.21-25

April 4^th:  Luke 24.1-10, Psalm 118.14-29, Isa 51.9-11

Can a church change?

This is a comment written in response to a post over at StandFirm which poses the question, “What does the Diocese of Upper South Carolina need in its next bishop?” While the whole post was interesting, the best part was this comment I’ve posted below. While the author is addressing the issues of the Upper Diocese, his remarks could be applied to any church in any denomination. I’ve emboldened the remarks that I hope you will pay the most attention to.  My two take home points from this post are (1) most churches will not grow because they are not willing to make the necessary changes to grow. They like things just they way they are and new folks would upset the apple cart. (2) Liberal theological commitments do not build the mental furniture necessary for motivating an individual to evangelism.  Once you remove the centrality of Christ, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and Hell the urgency to evangelize is greatly diminished.  If you would like to see this post in its original context click here.

Where a church, or a Diocese, has a history of expansion and growth, then growth doesn’t change what church is for people – it reinforces it. But if the Diocese is as you’ve described – static, or declining – genuine growth will undo much of what ‘church’ means to most of your laity and clergy. It would involve a very different kind of culture, one where most people in church haven’t been there for eighteen plus years and where there are constant new faces.

I’ve been part of churches, and talked with people who have been part of churches, who have been turned around after a long period of slow decline. Even when that turn around hasn’t involved significant changes just to reach new people, just the fact of a steady influx of new people has changed things so much that dealing with very disgruntled and even angry long-term members has been a real issue.

In your situation, I think you are not so much talking about ‘growth’ (which absolutely everyone wants. No really, they do.) but ‘change’ (which almost no-one wants.) Once churches are in a pattern of static numbers or slow decline they usually continue that until they are one step away from ceasing to exist. Then they are usually willing to try something (change? death? not much to choose between them, so why not try something new?) – but often have few resources at that point.

Trying to change before that point is often very very difficult. But it’s not simply about creating growth.

So in Australia – my home, if not where I’ve been for the last couple of years – I’d argue that the Diocese of Tasmania has managed to turn things around (or at least, has, a good chance). Their current bishop has, under God, introduced the kind of measures needed to revitalise dying churches. But it only happened because the Diocese was almost dead, and all except the most principled liberals (for whom it was liberal or nothing) were prepared to have a nice evangelical who was pro-WO if that might mean a new lease of life. Even then, the kind of changes he had to make, even as a nice guy, created enough ill-will to sink his nomination to be Archbishop of Melbourne.

2. Liberals don’t want people to come to faith in Christ. The nice ones don’t mind if they do, and don’t object to it. But they don’t want it. Not the way evangelicals and (it seems from the GAFCON launch here in the UK) your American Anglo-Catholics often do.

You can’t really grow churches unless you either give people what they want (e.g. the prosperity gospel) or what they need. The latter is costly and demanding, and ministers have to be willing to go through a lot to make that central to their ministry. Liberals, by and large, can’t sustain that – they don’t believe in Hell, in any objective atonement, in an eternal judgement. They might think people are better off with faith, but they don’t see it as a matter bigger than life and death. Without that, the ‘need’ of the current congregation for stability and security (especially under the circumstances you describe where there is no slack left in the system for normal crises) will trump a general desire for ‘growth’ in the abstract.

3. Your churches seem to have two related problems. They are in constant stress, and they are not receiving a ministry that feeds and matures them. The latter is because they are being ministered to by liberals. The former is also because they are being ministered to by liberals – but only because they themselves are more traditional in theology and the difference connects up with the three-year GC tsunami cycle to create constant stress. If they were liberal as well they wouldn’t have the stress because they’d be on board with the leadership.

So at present, the best a minister can hope to do is keep conflict to a minimum and keep the church experience stable and full of good qualities that, while not the gospel, still strengthen and encourage human life. But that is precisely what you don’t need if you are looking for growth – growth is going to involve creating stress, and making the gospel fairly central.
Hence promoting a cultural change in the leadership – either nicely (by not touching the current rectors but just making more evangelicals available) or aggressively (by trying to push the current ministers out while bringing more evangelicals in) is necessary to be able to address both problems. And both problems need to be addressed for growth to take place.

5. So I agree with you that what the Diocese needs is growth. But I think you need to address the leadership issue to get there. Liberal leadership and traditional congregations can’t make the wonderful Pied Piper kind of music together that might lead the children of Adam out of the city of Man. Hence, I think the Bishop needs to have a vision for leadership change, and be sufficiently godly and competent to effect it under God.

Paul Williamson: Abraham, Israel and the Church

One of the obvious contrasts between the Old and New Testaments is that in each the people of God are different. In one God’s saving activity focuses primarily on a national entity (i.e. ethnic Israel); in the other such focus centres on an international community (i.e. the global Church). It is clear, however, that New Testament writers considered the national entity to be in many respects a type or foreshadowing of the international community. [1] Yet some New Testament authors, in particular the Apostle Paul, seem to go much further – suggesting that the reality of the Christian Church was not merely foreshadowed in Israel but was in fact the ultimate climax and goal of the promises made to Abraham. [2] In other words, the promises made to Abraham concerned more than the physical nation of Israel; their supreme focus was on something far greater and more extensive: the international community of faith. [3]

An important question naturally arises from this: ‘How has this gulf between the nation of Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ been bridged?’ Did New Testament interpreters such as Paul perform exegetical somersaults to cross the divide? Indeed, must the modern interpreter do likewise in any attempt to defend their hermeneutics? Or is it exegetically defensible to find in the promises given to Abraham the Church of Jesus Christ not merely foreshadowed, but actually anticipated?

To answer these questions three things must be carefully examined:
1. the promises made to Abraham and their development in the book of Genesis;
2. the way these promises are interpreted and refined in the rest of the Old Testament; [4]
3. the way these promises have been reinterpreted and extended in the New Testament.

read the whole thing here

Andy Morgan: The Trinity and Christian Marriage

Andy Morgan, Associate Pastor at Prince George Winyah, teaches on Christian Marriage at Trinity Church at Fall Marriage Night, 2009.

Iain Boyd: Final devotion for Philippians study and further reading

We will be taking a brief hiatus from our Philippians devotionals.  They will be starting back on the week of Jan 10th.  In the meantime, I would encourage you to find some way of reading the Bible on your own.  Let me propose three different methods:

a.  Essential 100 Bible Readings:  This list runs through some of the key points in the thematic development of the Bible.  If you were to read through these 100 passages a few times, reading one of them a day, you would begin to have a solid grasp on the flow of the Bible.

b.  Scripture Union also has some great devotionals.  Many people have been using something along the lines of Forward Day by Day or Our Daily Bread for years.  The problem with these devotionals is that you don’t actually read much of the Bible.  Scripture Union’s devotionals provide systematic ways to read through parts of the Bible.  You could either do their Advent devotional “Journey to Bethlehem,” or one of their bible study guides like Discovery or Encounter with God. 

c.  Through the Bible in a Year.  This would take a little more effort than following the daily devotionals online.  The payoff, however, is tremendous.  I use the Discipleship Journal, but you could use the One Year Bible, McCheyne’s Bible Reading Plan.  You could even use the Episcopal Daily Lectionary.  It is helpful because all the readings are bite sized.  However, you won’t read the whole Bible, and sometimes the readings are from the Catholic Apocryphal readings, which we don’t consider inspired Scripture.  Whatever you do, don’t let the pattern God has formed in you in the past weeks slip away!  Capitalize off of it and use it as a launch pad to get you set on a life time course of daily spending time alone with God!

Click here to read the final devotional for this series

John Calvin: God rendered manifest in creation

Below is an excerpt from the “Argument” of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis. If you have Calvin’s commentaries, one of the most useful and yet (I’m betting) most neglected resources in those volumes in the “Argument” which prefaces every commentary. You will find a wealth of gems contained in those passages like one below, where Calvin proclaims the purpose of creation is to “render God manifest”. Click through to read it all.

I now return to the design of Moses, or rather of the Holy Spirit, who has spoken by his mouth. We know God, who is himself invisible, only through his works. Therefore, the Apostle elegantly styles the worlds, τὰ μἡ εχ φαινομένων βλεπόμενα, as if one should say, “the manifestation of things not apparent,” (Hebrews 11:3.) This is the reason why the Lord, that he may invite us to the knowledge of himself, places the fabric of heaven and earth before our eyes, rendering himself, in a certain manner, manifest in them. For his eternal power and Godhead (as Paul says) are there exhibited, (Romans 1:20.) And that declaration of David is most true, that the heavens, though without a tongue, are yet eloquent heralds of the glory of God, and that this most beautiful order of nature silently proclaims his admirable wisdom, (Psalm 19:1.)

read the rest here

John Dryden’s “Absalom and Achitophel”

Very early into Dryden’s poem it becomes clear that his subject matter is concerned not with the Biblical Absalom, but rather with the Monmouth rebellion of 1685. Nevertheless, Dryden is able to draw out several things that would seem to be applicable to the story found in 2 Samuel chs 13-18. Of note in this excerpt is Dryden’s depiction of David’s love for his rebellious son Absalom when he writes “What faults he had, — for who from faults is free?/ His father could not, or he would not see.” Be sure to read the whole thing. As political satire goes, this poem is a classic.

In pious times, ere priestcraft did begin,
Before polygamy was made a sin;
When man on many multiplied his kind,
Ere one to one was cursedly confined;
When nature prompted, and no law denied, [5]
Promiscuous use of concubine and bride;
Then Israel’s monarch after heaven’s own heart,
His vigorous warmth did variously impart
To wives and slaves; and, wide as his command,
Scattered his Maker’s image through the land. [10]
Michal, of royal blood, the crown did wear,
A soil ungrateful to the tiller’s care:
Not so the rest; for several mothers bore
To godlike David several sons before.
But since like slaves his bed they did ascend, [15]
No true succession could their seed attend.
Of all the numerous progeny was none
So beautiful, so brave, as Absalon;
Whether inspired by some diviner lust,
His father got him with a greater gust; [20]
Or that his conscious destiny made way,
By manly beauty, to imperial sway.

Early in foreign fields he won renown,
With kings and states, allied to Israel’s crown;
In peace the thoughts of war he could remove, [25]
And seemed as he were only born for love.

Whate’er he did, was done with so much ease,
In him alone ’twas natural to please;
His motions all accompanied with grace,
And paradise was opened in his face. [30]

With secret joy indulgent David viewed
His youthful image in his son renewed;
To all his wishes nothing he denied,
And made the charming Annabel his bride.

What faults he had, — for who from faults is free? [35]
His father could not, or he would not see.

Some warm excesses, which the law forbore,
Were construed youth that purged by boiling o’er;
And Amnon’s 6 murder, by a specious name,
Was called a just revenge for injured fame. [40]

Thus praised and loved, the noble youth remained,
While David undisturbed in Sion reigned.

read the rest here

“No one like him” (Phil 2.19-24)

Preached by Iain Boyd on Nov 8, 2009

Middle Class shoplifting to keep up appearances

I was a bit stunned when I read this over at Kendall’s. When I read it, apart from an initial wave of sorrow for these folks the next thing I thought of was the unrealistic standard of living many of us have in the west. This unrealistic standard of living has actually become a “right” which we are entitled to, and which as the article demonstrates many are willing to do anything to maintain for themselves. Of course the answer is not a wag from the finger, nor is it more stimulus money, it is quite simply satisfaction in Christ who can give immeasurably more than a middle class lifestyle.

Middle-class shoppers who have been hit by the recession are stealing hundreds of millions of pounds of expensive food in an effort to maintain their high standard of living, according to a new survey.

Quality cuts of meat, fresh fish and high-priced cheeses are being taken by mostly middle-class women from speciality food and convenience shops, where thefts have risen sharply in the past year. Thousands of retailers have found that luxury foods are being stolen for individual use rather than to be sold on.

The information comes from more than 42,000 shops in Europe with combined sales of £262 billion, who were questioned by the Centre for Retail Research, an independent organisation, for Checkpoint Systems, the retail security specialists.

read the rest over at Kendall’s blog

John Calvin: The Freedom of Christ

You may wonder why these two entries are dealing with freedom in Christ. I read them over this week in preparation to lead the Regenerate weekend, a youth conference for the Diocese of South Carolina. The theme? You guessed it! Freedom in Christ. Prayers much appreciated. I will post audio of the talks if possible, if not I will post full text. By the way, one extraordinary thing about this excerpt from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians is that you are able to see a window into the passion of Calvin for the Gospel.

Many persons, having never viewed the subject in this light, charge us with excessive zeal, when they see us so warmly and earnestly contending for freedom of faith as to outward matters, in opposition to the tyranny of the Pope. Under this cloak, our adversaries raise a prejudice against us among ignorant people, as if the whole object of our pursuit were licentiousness, which is the relaxation of all discipline. But wise and skillful persons are aware that this is one of the most important doctrines connected with salvation. This is not a question whether you shall eat this or that food, — whether you shall observe or neglect a particular day, (which is the foolish notion entertained by many, and the slander uttered by some,) but what is your positive duty before God, what is necessary to salvation, and what cannot be omitted without sin. In short, the controversy relates to the liberty of conscience, when placed before the tribunal of God.
The liberty of which Paul speaks is exemption from the ceremonies of the law, the observance of which was demanded by the false apostles as necessary. But let the reader, at the same time, remember, that such liberty is only a part of that which Christ has procured for us: for how small a matter would it be, if he had only freed us from ceremonies? This is but a stream, which must be traced to a higher source. It is because
“Christ was made a curse, that he might redeem us
from the curse of the law,” (Galatians 3:13;)
because he has revolted the power of the law” so far as it held us liable to the judgment of God under the penalty of eternal death; because, in a word, he has rescued us from the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death. Thus, under one department is included the whole class; but on this subject we shall speak more fully on the Epistle to the Colossians.
This liberty was procured for us by Christ on the cross: the fruit and possession of it are bestowed upon us through the Gospel. Well does Paul, then, warn the Galatians, not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage, — that is, not to allow a snare to be laid for their consciences. For if men lay upon our shoulders an unjust burden, it may be borne; but if they endeavor to bring our consciences into bondage, we must resist valiantly, even to death. If men be permitted to bind our consciences, we shall be deprived of an invaluable blessing, and an insult will be, at the same time, offered to Christ, the Author of our freedom. But what is the force of the word again, in the exhortation, “and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage?” for the Galatians had never lived under the law. It simply means that they were not to be entangled, as if they had not been redeemed by the grace of Christ. Although the law was given to Jews, not to Gentiles, yet, apart from Christ, neither the one nor the other enjoys any freedom, but absolute bondage.

read the rest here

Martin Luther: What is the freedom Christ brings?

Another excerpt from Luther’s commentary on Galatians. Though written over 500 years ago, it is still recognized as one of the finest commentaries on Galatians and theological works of all time. I’ve forgotten how many times I’ve read through it.

What liberty does Paul mean? Not civil liberty (for which we have the government to thank), but the liberty which Christ has procured for us.

At one time the emperor was compelled to grant to the bishop of Rome certain immunities and privileges. This is civil liberty. That liberty exempts the clergy from certain public charges. Then there is also another kind of “liberty,” when people obey neither the laws of God nor the laws of men, but do as they please. This carnal liberty the people want in our day. We are not now speaking of this liberty. Neither are we speaking of civil liberty.

Paul is speaking of a far better liberty, the liberty “wherewith Christ hath made us free,” not from material bonds, not from the Babylonian captivity, not from the tyranny of the Turks, but from the eternal wrath of God.

Where is this liberty?

In the conscience.

Our conscience is free and quiet because it no longer has to fear the wrath of God. This is real liberty, compared with which every other kind of liberty is not worth mentioning. Who can adequately express the boon that comes to a person when he has the heart-assurance that God will nevermore be angry with him, but will forever be merciful to him for Christ’s sake? This is indeed a marvelous liberty, to have the sovereign God for our Friend and Father who will defend, maintain, and save us in this life and in the life to come.

As an outgrowth of this liberty, we are at the same time free from the Law, sin, death, the power of the devil, hell, etc. Since the wrath of God has been assuaged by Christ no Law, sin, or death may now accuse and condemn us. These foes of ours will continue to frighten us, but not too much. The worth of our Christian liberty cannot be exaggerated.

Our conscience must he trained to fall back on the freedom purchased for us by Christ. Though the fears of the Law, the terrors of sin, the horror of death assail us occasionally, we know that these feelings shall not endure, because the prophet quotes God as saying: “In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment: but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee.” (Isa. 54:8.)

We shall appreciate this liberty all the more when we bear in mind that it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who purchased it with His own blood. Hence, Christ’s liberty is given us not by the Law, or for our own righteousness, but freely for Christ’s sake. In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, Jesus declares: “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” He only stands between us and the evils which trouble and afflict us and which He has overcome for us.

How can I grow spiritually?

Part 7 of an 8 week introduction to Christianity

Desmond Alexander: Royal Expectations from Genesis to Kings

As an academic discipline Biblical Theology is especially interested in the organic unity of the writings which comprise the Old and New Testaments. This raises two important and closely related issues. First, there is the question of the relationship between the two testaments. David L. Baker outlines well the nature of this problem: Christianity has the New Testament as the record and testimony of the life, death and resurrection of its founder, Jesus Christ, and of the formation of the Christian church. One of the most fundamental questions which has faced theology and the church in every age and still demands an answer today is whether or not Christianity also needs an Old Testament. Is the Old Testament to be thrown away as obsolete, or preserved as a relic from days of yore, or treasured as a classic and read by scholars, or used occasionally as a change from the New Testament, or kept in a box in case it should be needed some day? Or is the Old Testament an essential part of the Christian Bible, with continuing validity and authority alongside the New Testament? [1] Such questions highlight well the important and unresolved issue of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Second, fundamental to the New Testament understanding of Jesus of Nazareth is the idea that he fulfils Old Testament expectations regarding a divinely-appointed royal saviour or messiah. While Christians, by definition, are those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the messiah predicted in the Old Testament, there has been a growing tendency since the eighteenth century to challenge the validity of this claim. This trend, which may be traced back to the writings of the Deist Anthony Collins, [2] has depended heavily on the observation that many of the supposedly messianic Old Testament proof-texts quoted in the New Testament are not messianic according to the ‘plain meaning’ of the Hebrew text. As a result there has arisen a substantial scholarly consensus (a) that many Old Testament passages previously assumed to be messianic actually relate to ordinary kings, and (b) that the expectation of a future messiah originated first in the post-exilic period, following the demise of the Davidic dynasty [3].

read the whole thing here

J.C. Ryle: “unsanctified knowledge of Christianity”

With this post I am able to kill two birds with one stone.  First off, I’m able to point you towards a site that I’m pretty excited about.  Erik Kowalker is a courier at Fedex in the day, while by night he is a reformed vigilante propagating Gospel ministry through the writtings of the one and only J.C. Ryle.  He posts short quotes from the great Bishop of Liverpool on an almost daily basis.  Go check him out here. Secondly, with this post I get to point out the dangerous error of “unsanctified knowledge of Christianity.” As Dante and a few others (C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce) show us, hell is full of Christian theologians. Anyone can learn Christian theology, but a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian is that knowledge must have influence over our hearts, our minds, our emotions and our bodies. That is “sanctified” knowledge.

“Let us beware of an unsanctified knowledge of Christianity. It is a dangerous possession, but a fearfully common one in these latter days. We may know the Bible intellectually, and have no doubt about the truth of its contents. We may have our memories well stored with its leading texts, and be able to talk glibly about its leading doctrines. And all the time the Bible may have no influence over our hearts, and wills, and consciences. We may, in reality, be nothing better than the devils.”

~ J.C. Ryle

Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke, volume 2, 125.

check it out on Erik’s blog here

John Hendryx: On Free Will

This was sent to me by my good friend Sami. I have no bibliographical info on this quote and would like to provide it if anyone could contribute it. It is a fantastic excerpt on free will. Thanks Sami!

Consider a new mother, her infant and the approach of a madman with a dagger. Like most mothers, this new mother adores her baby so much that she would be willing to sacrifice her own life if it would save her child. But, in this instance, she faces a choice. A madman approaches her and holds out a dagger and orders her to sacrifice her baby. In fear she chooses to flee from him and, of course, refuses to kill her child. But the question, which seems ridiculous because the answer is so obvious, is why doesn’t she plunge the dagger into the child? She has the physical capacity to do so, right? She could easily plunge the knife into the child with her physical ability but she refuses, and in fact in incapable of doing so. Why? It is because her great affection for the child makes it morally impossible for her to carry out such an act under any circumstance. In the same way, we naturally (while unregenerate) refuse to plunge the dagger into the sin which we so love and join ourselves to Christ. Our disposition and affections determine the necessity of our choices.

John Frame once said in regard to the difference between Determinism & Fatalism: Determinism means that all events are rendered unavoidable by the cause, which include our choices. Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices. We believe that apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit to change our disposition, to disarm our natural hostility and illumine our hearts and minds to the truth, we would always turn our affections away from Christ toward darkness (John 3:19, 20). We have the physical ability to say a prayer or walk an aisle, but our hearts are filled with hostility toward God and we naturally suppress the truth in unrighteousness as Paul asserts in his epistle to the Romans. Our inability is simply a matter of the affections and we chose accordingly. Some persons, when they see Christ immediately have affection for him and others despise Him. The question we must all ask is, what makes the two to differ? Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ who has disarmed our hostility, forgiven our sins and adopted us into His own family.

John Hendryx