Know The Certainty | Sunday, February 2, 2025

I spent a lot of this week reading a dry and long volume called "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell was a very vocal atheist in the first half of the 20th century. One of his most well-known books was called "Why I Am Not a Christian." He was a very influential speaker in Europe and the United States, and many of those who are the most vocal atheists today really look back to Russell, who kind of led in that way in the 20th century.

However, he was also quite a scholar as it relates to the history of the West. He wrote this epic, very long book that I had to read for a seminar I am enrolled in right now. It begins with the history of thought, covering the Mesopotamian cultures and Egyptian cultures, and how they influenced Greece. It then discusses how Greece influenced Rome, and how Rome was radically transformed by early Christianity, followed by Catholicism and scholasticism, up to what we refer to as the modern era of philosophy.

As I was reading through this, some of the things I knew, while many others filled gaps in my knowledge. It was very interesting to discover that much of the thinking of the well-known philosophers in the modern era, particularly from the 18th century onward, is rather nonsensical. Their ideas were formulated by individuals who were very carnal, debauched men. They were given quite a bit of money by patrons and benefactors, which allowed them to live exceedingly carnal lives and to think very strange things, writing those strange ideas down.

The challenge is that many of their very strange ideas took hold and gained traction, influencing culture in the West, especially in the last 100 to 150 years, in ways that we all see the outcomes of today. One great writer in 1948, Richard Weaver, released a book called "Ideas Have Consequences," and that is very evident in the thinking of many of these carnal philosophers who recorded their ideas in the last two centuries.

Three hundred years in our culture, but one idea that had really great consequences was pinned by a Jewish convert to Christianity in the first century. It is recorded in the New Testament book of Colossians, chapter 2. Paul is the individual I am talking about, and I want to read to you from Colossians, chapter 2, verse 8. Paul says there, "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him, in Christ, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."

As I said, those words and the worldview and philosophy of individuals like Paul in the first century had great consequences. You can see the effects of that great consequence in Western history over the last 2,000 years. What is the core of the philosophy that he is speaking about? It places Christ, places Jesus, at the top. It puts Him at the center of the focus of your life as an individual, but also in the lives of entire cultures.

What is the outcome of that? I think that if you study history, as I have studied history, you discover that when an individual or a culture is Christocentric— and I actually did a series of teachings on the book of Colossians about ten years ago called "Christocentric"— when a culture or a life is Christocentric, where Christ is the center of their focus, where He is at the top of the hierarchy, to use kind of Jordan Peterson-esque terminology, when Christ is at the top, when He is the focus, He radically transforms for the better the lives of individuals and cultures that have Christ seated there in the middle.

If you look at history over the last 2,000 years, I think it is demonstrably the case. It is very clearly the case that those individuals and cultures that have Christ at the center of their worldview produce the greatest cultures and the greatest benefits for the most number of people. Yes, that's a bold claim, but I don't think it's refutable. I think that it is quite clear that where Christ is the center, He radically transforms for the better individuals' lives and cultures.

Most people change my mind by proving to me that that's not the case, and I don't think that you can. I think it is evidently clear that 2,000 years ago, a group of what was seen to be uneducated and untrained individuals turned the world upside down for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I would probably say they actually turned the world right side up, but that is the assessment. A group of uneducated and untrained individuals turned the world right side up.

How did they do it? To reduce it down to the very basic level, they spent three to three and a half years with an itinerant Jewish rabbi from Nazareth. Then, they wrote and spoke about their experiences, and what they wrote and preached radically transformed all of human culture for the good, for the better. That's a reductionist way of saying it, but if you really look at it, that is what took place.

In the earliest days, when this group of ragtag followers of Jesus of Nazareth began to do this, they were opposed by the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem. In one situation, they were brought before the Jewish religious ruling council called the Sanhedrin, where they were forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus. They were told, "You are not to speak in the name of Jesus any longer."

However, the book of Acts, chapter 4, records the assessment of the intelligentsia, the elite educated religious leaders of Judaism of the day, as they looked at two of the leading followers of Jesus, Peter and John, who were before them. It says this in Acts 4:13: "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, they perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men." They could tell these were a bunch of dummies. I mean, they were fishermen from Galilee. It would be well known by just listening to their speech because Galileans had a certain accent.

I'm sure there are certain accents in our culture where you know immediately where that person is from. You label them, right or wrong. You hear a certain accent, and you label them a certain way. This is actually quite true when we hear people with a British accent or a Scottish accent; we instantly give them more IQ points because of the way they talk.

Really good or they seem to, but then you hear other accents and you go, "Well, we know who that person is," and we demean them. That's exactly what was happening with Peter and John. These were uneducated, untrained men, but the religious elite perceived, as stated in Acts 4:13, that they were uneducated and untrained men. However, they marveled and realized that they had been with Jesus. There was something notable about these individuals.

Decades later, these bold, uneducated, untrained disciples, along with others, recorded their experiences of the life and ministry of Jesus in what we now know as the four Gospels. Not just the four Gospels, but they also documented their life and experiences, their ministry with Jesus, in what we know of as the New Testament. Their followers, the disciples of the disciples of Jesus, continued the work of the early followers. They spread throughout the known world of that time, preaching, teaching, and writing about the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of a rabbi from Nazareth named Jesus.

As I said, that message turned the world upside down or right side up. It opened blind eyes—metaphorically speaking. It brought people out of darkness and into light. It released them and loosed them from bondage. This was exactly what their mission was. Paul talks about it in Acts 26:18, stating that this is our mission: to open their eyes in order to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to the power of God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ. That was their message, and it radically transformed the world.

Now, when someone like myself begins to talk about the message of the Gospel in this way, the obvious question from skeptics arises. They might say, "Well, that's all well and good, but how do we know that what Peter, John, Paul, and others declared to us is true? It's great that you're saying all these things, but I want to know if these things actually happened."

That's a valid question. Of course, I believe the answer to the question, "Are these things actually true? Did these things actually happen?" is yes. But why do I believe the answer is yes? That's something that many in our culture want to know.

One of the answers to that question, how do we know that this is true, I have already alluded to. I would call it one of the practical proofs of the power of the message of the Gospel, which is that it changes individual lives and cultures. You will know a tree by its fruit. When we see the good fruits of the Gospel, there is something about that fruit that leads back to the tree and the root, indicating that there is something we should really investigate and look into.

In fact, I just listened to a podcast where Joe Rogan basically said, "Well, obviously Christianity is true in the sense that it changes people." This is Joe Rogan saying this. For some of you, that may not mean anything, but for me, having followed him for a while, it's like a guilty pleasure to listen to him. Watching this transformation take place, he is at least acknowledging what I am talking about. A practical demonstration, a practical proof of the validity of the message, is in the outcomes. Jesus said that wisdom is justified by all her children in Luke 7:35. What does that mean? It means outcomes are important.

So, that's one of the practical proofs of the Gospel. But that still doesn't answer the question: How do you know that these things are true? I think it's a worthy question to ask. One of the awesome things about that practical proof is just looking around this room right now. I see individuals who are a testimony to the power of the Gospel. Your life is a testimony to the power of the Gospel, and that is a strong and valid testimony.

But is there other evidence that supports the proposition that the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—specifically the Synoptic Gospels, which are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give a brief synopsis of the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? Their accounts are very similar. Is there evidence that these things are valid and true? This is the challenge that will come against us.

The leading skeptic of our day is Bart Ehrman, a critical New Testament scholar from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. If you ever watch The History Channel and they do a segment on Jesus or the New Testament, Bart Ehrman will be their chief scholar that they consult. I have read many of his books. He is a former Evangelical Christian who has turned away from the faith, and he has various reasons for this, including some sort of tragedy he experienced in his life at some point. As a result, he has become a skeptic of the Gospel.

What will he say about the messages of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? He will argue that we cannot trust these messages because they were written 50 to 70 years after the life and ministry of Jesus. He claims they were authored by people who had never been to Judea and who were not eyewitnesses of the life and ministry of Jesus. Therefore, he concludes that these accounts cannot be trusted. This is what he writes in his books and presents in his debates. He asserts that they were written 50 to 70 years after the life and ministry of Jesus by individuals who were far removed from those events and had never been to Judea.

Is that valid? Is that true? This is the skeptical question we need to address. How do we determine if something that happened in the past actually occurred? This relates to historiography. To know that anything happened in the past, we rely on trusted individuals who were near the events and can testify, "I saw this" or "I saw that." Based on their testimony, we believe they are reliable witnesses.

However, what Ehrman and other skeptics are saying is that these accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. They were written by people who did not even know eyewitnesses and who were far removed from the events, many years after they occurred. This presents a challenge. The question is whether we have a counterargument to this claim. I want to suggest that we do, and I encourage you to do the research if you are inclined.

I have spent many years reading the scholarship on this topic, poring over stacks of books. I have taken classes on the canonicity of the Bible and explored where these texts came from. I can provide you with a long list of books if you are interested, although I must warn you that they can be quite difficult to read at times.

They're very heady and very dry, but the scholarship is there. What does the scholarship say? Well, there are three lines of evidence that I think are very important as it relates to the validity of the Gospel.

First is the practical proof, which I already talked about: your changed life and the changed cultures that have been affected by the message and the power of the Gospel. That's a practical proof. But then there are literary proofs and historical proofs. There are internal evidences and external evidences.

The historical proofs, the external evidence, show that the early Christian authors in the late first century and the early second century contended that it was the eyewitnesses themselves, or the associates of those eyewitnesses, who recorded the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew, or Levi, was a disciple of Jesus who was a follower of Christ and saw His ministry. He recorded these things in the Gospel that you know of as Matthew. That's what the external evidence of history shows us from the late first century and the early second century.

John was the last of the four Gospels written, probably about 90 AD, but John was an eyewitness; he was one of Jesus's followers. Mark and Luke were written not by eyewitnesses but by near associates of eyewitnesses. Mark is highly likely the recording of Peter's message, as Peter was an eyewitness of the Gospel. Mark recorded Peter's detailing of the events, and Luke recorded Paul's detailing of the events. This is what the external evidence of history shows us from the late first century and the early second century. That is what we call the historical proofs.

But then, even better than that, I think are what we call the internal or literary proofs. The internal evidence in the Gospels points to the fact that these were written by the actual individuals who were eyewitnesses of Jesus's life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection. How do we determine those things from the Gospels? I want to give you just a few proofs from the message of the New Testament that support the claim that these things were actually written by eyewitnesses very soon after the events of the crucifixion of Jesus, within 20 to 25 years.

Bart Ehrman and other skeptics say it was 50 to 70 years later by people who were not eyewitnesses, but scholars and Christians for centuries have said otherwise.

No, they were written within 25 years of the events of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus by those who are actual witnesses. How do we know that? Well, one of the ways we determine that is by the words that the author of the Gospel of Luke presents in both his book, called The Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts. You see, Luke is part one of a two-volume set; the book of Acts is part two.

How do we know that? If you want to, you can open your Bibles to Luke chapter 1, and I'll show you how we know that. In Luke chapter 1, we read this in verse three. The author of this Gospel, Luke, says in Luke 1:3, "It seemed good to me also, having a perfect understanding of all the things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus."

Who is Theophilus? Well, he's not the most famous person you've ever met. Theophilus means "lover of God." We don't know exactly who Theophilus is, but he is believed by many to be the benefactor who provided Luke the resources to do the groundwork in putting together the eyewitness testimonies about the life and ministry of Jesus and the early apostles.

Luke chapter 1 opens with an introduction of the Gospel of Luke to Theophilus. Then, the book of Acts chapter 1 opens like this in verse one: "The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day in which he was taken up, after he through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom he had chosen."

So, if the former account is the Gospel of Luke, Acts is the second in the two-volume set, both written by an individual whose name we do not know at this point. However, when you piece the puzzle together as you study systematically through the whole book of Acts, you make a very interesting discovery.

In Acts chapter 16, it records the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul during what is referred to as his second missionary journey. There, Paul meets an individual who becomes a convert to Christianity, whose name is Luke. In Acts chapter 17, after he meets this individual named Luke, the narrative account of the book of Acts continues.

Every time Luke is with Paul, he refers to them as "we." They traveled from here to there, and when he stops walking with Paul, he no longer refers to himself as "we." It is the conclusion of Bible teachers and scholars that Luke, who we meet in Acts chapter 16, is the author of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. We are able to determine a number of interesting things about him.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because of how the book of Acts ends. The book of Acts concludes in Acts chapter 28, and it has a kind of strange, non-ending ending where it just goes off a cliff. It lacks finality, and many people appreciate that from a spiritual sense because they say the acts of God working through His church are not done with the book of Acts; they just continue. However, from a literary standpoint, it presents a challenge because the literature does not have a clear ending.

The book ends with the Apostle Paul, who is the focal point of the ministry in Acts, in prison in Rome, awaiting a trial that will ultimately lead to his martyrdom by beheading. He is still alive during this first imprisonment, and then the book of Acts just stops. What does that imply? It implies that the recording of the book of Acts by the individual known as Luke stopped at that point in time.

When was that point in time? We know from history that it was roughly 62 AD. So, what does that mean? It means that the book of Acts was written in or around 62 AD. What does that tell us about book one of the two-volume set? It was probably written before that. Not only was it likely written before that, but the other Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, are referred to by Luke as having written before him. Therefore, they were written somewhere between 55 and 60 AD.

Why does any of that matter? It places the writing of the Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—within 25 years of the crucifixion of Jesus. Would you think that they are orderly accounts of eyewitnesses if they are only 25 years removed? Let me put it to you like this: How many of you remember 9/11 in 2001? That was 25 years ago. How many of you think you could probably write a pretty good orderly account of the events that happened on 9/11? It would likely be quite valid.

Pretty trustworthy, these are the recordings of eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses within 25 years of the events that happened. How can we be so certain that they were written so soon after the events took place? Within 25 years, one of the fascinating internal evidences, or literary proofs, is that the Apostle Paul wrote a series of letters in the New Testament. One of them was a letter to one of his disciples named Timothy. In 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke.

What does that mean? If he quotes the Gospel of Luke, do you think that the Gospel of Luke existed before he wrote that letter? There's a good chance that it did. He quotes the Gospel of Luke and writes this in or about 64-65 AD. What does that mean? It means that the Gospel of Luke was written before Paul wrote to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18.

So why does this all matter? Well, Bart Ehrman, probably the most well-known critic of the New Testament and of the Gospels, asserts that these were written by non-eyewitnesses who had never been to Judea 50 to 70 years after the events of Jesus's life and ministry, and therefore they cannot be trusted. What is his primary reason for believing they were written that long after the fact?

Here's his primary reason: the main reason that Bart Ehrman and other skeptics do not believe that these were written by eyewitnesses who lived near that time is an event that took place in 70 AD. Some of you might know what that event was; it was the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The temple was destroyed by Titus in August of 70 AD, and we know that in history.

Why does that matter? Well, because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. He says, "Do you see this temple? Not one stone will be left upon another; all will be cast down." In 70 AD, per the prediction of Jesus, that's exactly what happens. If you are a skeptic of miracles, if you're a skeptic of the power of God, if you're a skeptic that Jesus is able to predict the future, then you're going to say that was written after the destruction of 70 AD. It can't possibly have been written before the destruction of 70 AD because that would mean Jesus is something more than a mere man. And if you're a skeptic like Bart, that is a significant point of contention.

Erman, you don't want to admit that Jesus is more than a mere man. You can't do that, and so he has to say, "Well, obviously it had to be written after 70 AD." Well, I suggest it's not as obvious as he'd like to say it.

All that to say, point number one: I finally got there. The evidence shows that the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Now, I realize that this is a contested bold claim, but like I said, you're welcome to do the research. I've done the research, and it has been extensively studied by theologians and scholars for 2,000 years. The research validates and substantiates that the Gospels were based on eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

The only reason that skeptics are generally skeptical of this is that they do not believe in that last underlined word: the resurrection of Jesus. If these are eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, then you have to admit that Jesus is more than a mere man. They don't want to do that. Why? Because then it means he might be who he said he is. And who did he say he is? The one true God incarnate.

Can you see why a skeptic is skeptical? They don't want to admit to that reality. But the literary proofs, the historical proofs, and the practical proofs of changed lives and cultures over the last 2,000 years demonstrate that these things are true.

Now, I realize that all of this is more akin to the introduction to a lecture for a graduate class on the canonicity of Scripture than anything you would get on a normal Sunday morning. Why am I doing this? Critics in our culture, and we live in a hypercritical culture, discourage your trust in the Gospels. They tell you that you're a fool to believe in these things because they were written by non-eyewitnesses 50 to 70 years after the events took place, by people who had never been to Judea or knew none of the eyewitnesses who were there. They want to discourage your trust in these documents, and I am saying these things because I want you to know the certainty of the things in which you are instructed.

Look, if you will, at the way that Luke opens the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 1:1 states, "Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us," just as Matthew and Mark did. Those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word delivered these accounts to us. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, O most excellent Theophilus.

In verse 4, the purpose is revealed: "that you may know the certainty of the things in which you are instructed." Two thousand years ago, one of the earliest apologists and defenders of the Christian faith, a Greek-speaking physician likely from somewhere in Asia Minor, wrote these things so that you might know the certainty of the teachings you have received. I want you to know the certainty of the things in which you are instructed. These are not cleverly devised fables.

Peter, one of the Apostles of Jesus, writes in 2 Peter 1:12-16, "For this reason, I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, this body, to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off this body, just as the Lord Jesus Christ showed me. Moreover, I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my death."

In verse 16, he continues, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." These are not cunningly devised fables. The Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are not merely narrative accounts of the story of Jesus; they are what we would call Roman biographies of the life, ministry, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. They are not what the New International Version refers to as cleverly devised stories.

Paul, John, Peter, and Matthew did not fabricate these stories. They are recorded eyewitness accounts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Those individuals went about for the rest of their lives, many of them until they...

Were martyred for their proclamation of this truth, they went about declaring the power of the Kingdom of God, just as Jesus commissioned and commanded them to go and do. They turned the world right side up.

Point number two: the Gospel is a radically powerful message that saves and transforms individuals and cultures. I keep repeating this, and I'm going to keep saying it until I no longer have any breath to say it, because I think this is demonstrably true. The Gospels are a radical, powerful message that saves and transforms individuals and cultures. Each of you here today is what the Bible would describe as a living epistle; you are a living letter that declares this reality and this truth. Paul said this about the church at Corinth: your very lives prove the validity of this message.

Point number three: my changed life is a testimony and witness of the power of the Gospel. This is such an important point. You see, when the religious leaders in Jerusalem dragged Peter and John before the religious ruling council, the Sanhedrin, they charged them to no longer speak in the name of Jesus. They did this in Acts chapter 3, they did this in Acts chapter 4, and they did it again in Acts chapter 5. They had a problem; they noticed that these bold proclaimers of the message of Jesus were untrained and unlearned men.

But there was an even bigger problem than the fact that they were bold in their proclamation of the risen Jesus Christ. In that event in Acts chapter 4, Peter had just preached a message, and John had just preached a message. Before they preached, there was a lame man who sat outside the temple at the gate every day, begging for money. When John and Peter passed him, they said to him, "Hey, look at us. Silver and gold we don't have, but what we do have we give to you: in the name of Jesus, rise and walk." They took him by the hand, and he was healed of whatever infirmity he had that made him lame.

When Peter and John stood before the ruling council and they were told not to speak of Jesus any longer, that man was standing there. His changed life was a testament to the power of the Gospel. He had been lame for a long time and had sat at the gate of the temple receiving alms.

Whoever would give them to him, he was standing there whole, no longer lame. It says in Acts 4:14, "Seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it."

So, you meet that neighbor, coworker, family member, or friend who's skeptical of this message. Their skepticism is valid, and their questions should be answered. But here's one of the answers: I once was blind, but now I see. Your life is a testimony that validates and proves the truthfulness and the power of the message of the Gospel. Your changed life is a powerful demonstration. The Gospel has radically transformed the world for the better; it is evidently clear.

I received a card in the mail this week that I think helps demonstrate this. After the message I gave last week, someone in the church sent me this card. I'm not going to say who it was, but I want to share a portion of the card. It says, "Dear Pastor Miles, I thought I would share with you why I continued at Cross Connection Church even after the friends who introduced us to the church left years ago. I don't attend Cross Connection Church because your sermons are warm and fuzzy. In fact, a lot of what you and our other wonderful pastors say is challenging to hear. But little by little, slowly over the years, I noticed I was becoming more forgiving, less susceptible to the cutting words of others. I had less hurt feelings and less to forgive.

I noticed that when someone needed help and I had what it took to help them, I thanked God for the opportunity and ability to help them without a thought about why they were in the situation or needing help. I even started to think about wives being called to submit to their husbands as an opportunity to be like Christ. I looked back on my life and realized that I had become a master at hardening my heart to certain people, steeling my nerves to certain situations, and aiming to win as much as possible. Now I'm focused on how best to use the gifts God has given me to serve others, knowing that the outcome is up to God.

If anyone ever tells you again that you're not teaching the word of God, please be assured that no other word could have had this effect on my life besides the living, powerful, sharp, piercing, discerning word of God.

God, the Word of God is living and powerful. It's sharper than any two-edged sword; it cuts deep and divides between joint and marrow, soul and spirit. It is a discerner of the thoughts and the intents of the heart.

I think it's perfectly fine to be skeptical. It's great to have questions about the claims that Christians make regarding the identity of Jesus and the message of the Bible. If it cannot stand up to the scrutiny of questions, it's not worth dedicating your life to it. However, if you're going to have those questions, you must give the evidence a fair and honest hearing. You must consider the literary, historical, and practical proofs of the Gospel to find out whether or not the message is verifiable. If the fruit is good, then it's worth asking whether or not the tree and root are good as well.

With this, I want to give one final encouragement to you today. If you're a Christian, it is essential that you allow the Word of God to convict you. It is a must that you allow the Spirit of God to transform you. Why? Because if your neighbor, coworker, or your son or daughter, who used to go to church and no longer does, does not see in you the fruit of the Gospel—the fruit of the Spirit—they have every reason to question whether or not this is actually true or whether or not you actually believe it.

The Gospel should be evident in my life through the increase of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. It is the fruit of the Spirit and is essential in showing to the people you interact with who are skeptical of the Gospel's message. Let me tell you, it is a challenging message. It challenges our intellect to believe that a crucified man rose from the dead and that He is God incarnate. That's a leap.

But when I see in your life love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, and other virtues of the Spirit that you did not produce or buy on Amazon.com, then I know I should probably take a look at this because that person has the joy that I don't.

Have they the peace that I wish I had? They have the self-control and kindness I know I don't have, and would to God that they would increase in my life and yours. God help us.

Let's stand and close in prayer. Father God, I thank You for this book of books that we have. I thank You that it can stand up to the scrutiny of skepticism and questions. I thank You that we can know the certainty of the things in which we have been instructed.

Lord, I thank You that these are not just words on paper, but these are words that have power that transform us. They transform us wholly and completely from the inside out. So God, I pray that You would convict us if in any way we are not demonstrating the Fruit of the Spirit.

Holy Spirit, I pray that You would work in us to prune away any branch that does not bear fruit so that we would produce good fruit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control, and all the others that go along with it. May it be seen in us, evident to us and to others.

God, continue to transform us. Help us to be lights in a dark place, a city set on a hill that cannot be hidden, living epistles to a world that is in desperate need of the love letter that is the Gospel. God, work in us, we pray. We ask this in Jesus' name, and all those that agreed said, "Amen."