Wednesday, November 15, 2017

An Old Poem I Wrote

In the ABAB rhyme scheme, this is one of the more cohesive personal works of poetry I've produced, which makes me quite pleased. First written 4 1/2 years ago, it accurately represents the general point of view that I've had for more than ten years, since beginning to pray under starlight and contemplate my life in that setting.

Please be gracious in understanding that it's difficult to convey exactly what you mean while adhering to a specific meter (A: iambic pentameter, B: iambic tetrameter). 'Anxious' and 'kiss her' come to mind. Nevertheless, enjoy the poem!

Ode to An Outdoorsy Wife

Come, let me read you a tale from the heart
And soon you will quite understand
How a person like me could consider it art
How the mind works inside of a man

Dusk, when the sun sinks below all the trees
Is my favorite time of the day
Why should it be that the sweet evening breeze
And the night sky incline me to say,

"God, I am thankful to be here this night
And I love what I see with my eyes. 
Please give me grace that I walk in the Light
And to not fail to strive for your prize." ?

Nature, I reckon, inclines me to worship
The One who created it all
One day, yet future, a songbird in courtship
My bride it shall also enthrall

For if we would ever be joined in one flesh
We can't be too different, you know
As husband and wife, our interests should mesh
And our differences help us to grow

No doubt, she'll be unlike myself in most ways
But I figure we both can agree
That a walk in the evening outside on most days
Will us both inspire genuinely

There's something quite soothing 'bout being outside
And it's something that I want to share
With a wonderful woman--my sister, my bride
I am anxious until I get there

For now, it's just me and my awesome Creator
Conversing on star-studded nights
The hills and the trees are a natural theater
The world is afire with lights

It is easy to see when the sun is up high
And the colors are vibrant and stark
But the light that I seek is a different design
It is one that will shine in the dark.

It is true that I'm never truly alone
My Savior is with me always
But until that day when He bids me come home
There's something inside me that says,

"Lord, let me grow and become a good man,
So that one day a woman will find
That our mutual love could be part of Your plan,
That I will be hers and she mine

Let her be someone who like me loves mountains
And let her also love You
Give me the strength to love like a fountain
Always outpouring anew."

I hope against hope that I'll find her one day
And that when I do, I don't miss her
So until I am ready, I still watch and pray
Until finally, I get to kiss her.

Artful, perhaps, is the mind of this writer
Full of God, nature, women and more
Against loneliness, romance is a fighter

But it's God who foreknows what's in store.

-W

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Repost: Don't Die Twice for A Straw Man

From about 4-5 years ago, this reflects my thinking on common atheist objections to Christian morality.

"Don't Die Twice for A Straw Man"

Who would die for one of those, anyway?

I was having an online discussion with an atheist I've had occasional back-and-forths with for a few years, and he trotted out this line:
I don't want my philosophy to comfort me, I want it to tell me the truth at all instances.

When I see a dying, starving person, I don't want to see a person going to heaven. To me, that is one of the most sinister lies and I wouldn't want my children to believe this about a person in strife. Strife is a REAL thing, and for me, it is something that does not end in heaven or hell. Truly, I am only comforted by atheism to know that the REALITY of life, including a dying and sick world, is a real one. I can't do anything about this dying and sick world except be my best, but at least I know it isn't a fight of devils and angels--rather in humanity's control.

I believe life comes once, I don't want to be a good person because I will be tortured and my skin burned off if I don't. That's not morality for me.
You know, I suspect he thinks this would upset me most because it supposedly reveals the hypocrisy of people of faith. Namely, that of supposedly being concerned with people's "greater good," to the point of ignoring their earthly needs. He thinks faith breeds fatalism, with regard to making the world a better place. What really upsets me is that he still has this wrong view of faith, despite months and years of telling him the truth.

Here was my full response:
I can tell you what, [opponent], when I see people dying it doesn't comfort me to see people going to hell. That's what motivates me to reach out to them with the Gospel lest they perish in vain.

[Opponent], being a good person won't get you into heaven. You're already going to hell because you're INCAPABLE of being a good person. This is what you don't get. We Christians don't behave morally because God threatens us. We do good in grateful response to the fact that He saved us from hell even though we did not deserve to go to heaven. If you think we do good to bribe God you are mistaken. That's not Christianity, that's works-righteous false religion. Don't die twice for a straw man.
Every day, 200,000 people die. Realizing that so many people are slipping into eternity without you having even the slightest opportunity to do anything about it is distressing. It's not comforting at all. What is comforting in moments of realizing that, is that God is sovereign. Simply, He's in control. You don't have the responsibility over all those people. God will ensure that there are Christians strategically placed just where He wants them, to be salt and light for a dying world. And guess what? You are the one that He's handpicked to do just that, where you are.

So the understanding that the world is perishing and I have a part to play in saving it motivates me to be more aggressive in spreading the Gospel. I'd gladly take the risk of being seen as "one of those crazy Christian nutjobs," than to make people feel comfortable even as their eternity is in peril. My conscience won't let me accept quietness. I must speak.

What saddens me so much is when guys like him say that they don't think it's legitimate to be good because otherwise you'll be tortured. I TOTALLY AGREE! That IS illegitimate! And it isn't the Christian way! We don't do good because God is threatening us. We do it to repay Him with gladness for everything He has given us. We honor Him out of love, not out of mortal terror. I wish my opponent would understand this...

I think he chooses to believe that because it makes it easier to reject the Christian faith. But if you're offended by something that isn't actually Christianity, and you turn around and reject Christianity, you've made a terrible mistake.


The Straw Man Fallacy is the logical misstep of misrepresenting what you're arguing against. Then you defeat this 'straw man' and claim to have defeated what you were arguing against. But if you don't ever attack the actual position, you can't ever defeat it, and so you're never justified in rejecting it. That's the mistake my opponent made above. He's right to reject what he describes, because a belief system that makes God out to be an extortioner is clearly false. Sadly, he makes the error of asserting that this is the Christian faith, and this is not so.

I said 'don't die twice for a straw man,' because hell is referred to as the "second death." (Revelation 20:14)

It's not worth it to go to hell because you insisted on believing a lie. The character Yossarian in the novel Catch-22 was having a debate with a lady friend of his, and though they were both atheists, the woman was upset at how Yossarian characterized God--angry, mean, stupid, evil, etc. Yossarian reaches a compromise by saying, "the God you don't believe in is not the same God that I don't believe in." (That's paraphrased).

My atheist friend, the god you don't believe in is not the God I believe in. Repent and live.

-W

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Submission to Authority and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

July 4th Post

Suppose you were compelled by law to take some action you deemed immoral, or face incarceration and fines? While we seem to be trending that way with Orwellian crimespeak in some quarters, this has happened before.


If you thought you would have to decide whether you thought owning slaves was right or wrong, if you lived in the 1850s, and opt out of participating in it yourself, you thought wrong. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 not only required law enforcement in Northern states to apprehend escaped slaves (and paid them a hefty bonus for it), but:
"In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine" (Article on Wikipedia)
If you let a runaway stay on your property, or if you gave them a cup of water, without reporting them to the authorities, you could be fined the equivalent of $30,000 in today's dollars AND thrown in jail. 

So here's the question:

Is it right or wrong to give food and shelter to a runaway slave in this situation?
Is it right or wrong to decline to report a runaway slave if you know of one?


For some, one might be easier than the other, and for others, the reverse. I could see how one person might feel ethically compelled to provide food, feeling that it is a violation of James 2:15-16 to refuse their neighbor in need. I can also see how someone else might feel justified not telling the authorities so long as they provided no aid, because at least then they wouldn't be in violation of the law, so they might think. I could see how some might provide aid, and tell the authorities afterward. I could see how some would delay to tell the authorities. And I could see how some might defy the law on both points, utterly.


But I would like to point out that regardless of which way you're convicted, the difference between a Christian and a Republican (you know, the anti-slavery party) lies in how you would respond when you get caught.


Do you: flee? Go down guns blazing? Have your friends bust you out of prison? Lie when questioned? No.
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13:1-7

So what does the Christian do? He exercises his discernment in helping those he can practically help who are indeed in need. He exercises his conscience in deciding to report himself to the authorities. And if he is caught, he submits to the arrest without unlawfully resisting the government's right to detain. In all of this, he obeys God's law, choosing to ignore human government when it compels him to do evil, but submitting to it when it acts in accordance with God's law. 

And that means that even though the crime is no crime, for which he is arrested, the government is still legitimately authorized TO arrest, and the Christian rejoices that he is counted worthy to suffer disgrace for the name of Jesus.  Acts 5:41


The Christian obeys the government's authority. This includes the authority to imprison, fine, and execute you, even under false pretenses. But he does not recognize the government's authority to compel him to commit evil. At this point, the Christian takes a stand and lets everyone know that his fidelity to God is what compels him, so that even in his persecution, he might witness to unbelievers whose hard hearts God has determined to soften by means of the unjust spectacle.

In other words, you could say that, while you're not obligated to obey the government if it tries to make you do evil, you're obligated to obey the government even if the government's actions are evil. The fact that it's perpetrating injustice doesn't render our submission to its authority voluntary. If this were true, then we would never be in submission to government, because government is composed of men and men are sinful, so government will always be acting sinfully to some degree. We simply can't justify rebellion based on how bad our government is. We justify disobedience to the government when our obedience to the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) requires us to refuse a command to the contrary. This is the Christian ethic of civic responsibility.



I'm posting this on July 4th because there is a tendency toward uncritical patriotism of country, among Christians, pseudochristians and conservatives in America. Too often, in practice, the country itself is held up as the highest ideal and that which most richly deserves our honor and commitment. But this ignores the fact that in both the present, future, and past of this country have included laws which punish good and require evil, which Christians cannot gloss over. The highest ideal is the Law of God. The fact that no one, and no country, can aspire to that naturally brings up the doctrine of Soli Deo Gloria. You can't do it, and that's precisely why you need God. His glory is the highest good, and thwarting those who seek any other glory is His specialty. Submit to Him, and He will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:6

May this country indeed return, or this somewhat abstract exercise is due to become painfully practical as it ceases to be a thought-experiment and becomes our daily reality.

The practical reason why we must respond Biblically, not politically, to unjust government -- a far distant second to the primary reason that we should obey God because we love Him and desire to obey because it is right to obey, and His Spirit in us compels us to do right -- is that while God doesn't guarantee national blessing, He only promises to bless nations that follow His precepts, so when things don't work out when your primary objective is political victory, don't be surprised.

Consider this, instead.

“Although slavery is not uniformly condemned in either the Old or New Testaments, the sincere application of New Testament truths has repeatedly led to the elimination of its abusive tendencies. Where Christ’s love is lived in the power of His Spirit, unjust barriers and relationships are inevitably broken down. As the Roman empire disintegrated and eventually collapsed, the brutal, abused system of slavery collapsed with it—due in great measure to the influence of Christianity. ... New Testament teaching does not focus on reforming and re structuring human systems, which are never the root cause of human problems. The issue is always the heart of man—which when wicked will corrupt the best of systems and when righteous will improve the worst. If men’s sinful hearts are not changed, they will find ways to oppress others regardless of whether or not there is actual slavery.”~ John MacArthur

-W

I credit Todd Friel, John MacArthur, and the endless parade of Christian martyrs for persuading me of the correctness of this Biblical approach to government law and order.

Saturday, July 1, 2017

The Meaning of the Terms "Conservative" and "Liberal"

There's a reason why terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' sometimes serve to confuse political discussions. It's because those words are adjectives -- another word for adjective is a "noun modifier." In other words, nothing is conservative or liberal in and of itself, but with respect to something that can be conserved or loosened. Let's look at the terms:

Conserve: to conserve, restrain, hold back, maintain, preserve, hold fast to, etc.

Liberally: profusely; Liberate: to loosen, set free, relinquish control over, etc.

From what I remember, the Founders made a distinction between the concepts of "freedom" and "liberty." The short summary is this: total individual freedom, a 'state of nature,' is not true freedom at all because it's unstable. The strong eventually conquer the weak and impose their own rules. By contrast, liberty is freedom with some minimal, reasonable restrictions on the individual, that makes society safe for individuals to exercise their freedom, enabling them to be more free than they would be otherwise, without those restrictions.

Back on topic: Conservatives wish to conserve something, but Liberals wish to relax, or be free from those things. But what is that thing?

This is where I wish to make an important point. Conservatism and Liberalism mean different things in different countries, because their different histories, by definition, mean that that which would be conserved varies based on the established historical culture of those places.

That's why, in Iran, conservatism means Shia Islam. In Saudi Arabia, it's Wahhabi Islam. In Spain and Italy, it's Roman Catholicism. In the US, it's Protestant Christianity. In the UK, "conservatism" is just slightly more pro-capitalist liberalism. In Russia, it's Communism, and in China, it's a mixture of that and, religiously, ancestor-worship is the traditional spiritual belief. So on and so forth.

The US differs from the UK, despite their common language and some similar facets of culture. While they have a similar theological history, their political culture is very distinct. The UK was a Constitutional Monarchy since the good old days when King John signed the Magna Carta. It still is, but the monarchy is much weakened in its power. The US, on the other hand, has never had a king. It has always been a mixture of a Republic (leaders decide the laws on behalf of the people) and a Democracy (the leaders are chosen by the people). The democratic aspect of this is deeply embedded in American society because of generations of asserting the ideal of individualism. In America, the political unit is the individual. This is in turn supported by the theological teachings of Christianity, which says that all people are made in God's image and are responsible for themselves.

American Conservatism, then, is extremely unique because no other country has over a hundred years of history at its foundation that supports the political position that says that every individual has the right and responsibility to make their own decisions, provided they are not immoral, without any other person interfering with their ability and prerogative to do so.

That's why Conservatism in the US can be boiled down to a single phrase, as far as it concerns the relationship between the individual and his government: personal responsibility.

This is the functional secular definition that most people on the political right conceive the term to mean. It's how come Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and even Atheists can be politically conservative -- and not just in name, but genuinely have many opinions in common with genuine conservative Christians.

To be more specific, however, American Conservatism, understood historically, means the maintaining of Biblical Christian principles in all areas of public and private life.

That's my working definition. It, once again, can be agreed to to an extent by people with other philosophies. "Biblical Christian principles," without the faith, are often borrowed by those with less internally consistent views, because of their inherent usefulness. That doesn't make them true, but because they are true, they are inherently worthwhile to pursue, in ways that are sometimes obvious and sometimes revealed after a time, and so atheists can often see the value in limited government, and Catholics can express strong convictions about the value of human life and the blessing of doing marriage God's way. In this way they are conservative in ways that Christian conservatives can agree with politically, but the ultimate reasons are different. The Christian is concerned with glorifying God, and does not get lost in secondary causes. We stand for what is right not because it seems practical, but because even if it does not, we trust that God knows best and we want to glorify Him by our obedience.


This is all to distinguish between holding political positions that are consistent with Biblically conservative Christianity, and being reborn by the Holy Spirit so that, as a natural outgrowth of your continuing sanctification, you follow God's principles from the heart.

The liberal view, meanwhile, would be, rather than maintaining those principles, loosening and/or abandoning those principles.


-W

Monday, June 26, 2017

Let's Play A Game: Popular Songs As Summarized by Puritans

This gets worse as you go down the list.

Point 1: While Puritan is often used contemporarily as a derogatory term, it is a historical term that refers to English Reformers specifically, and, since then, conservative protestants specifically. You could be considered a puritan for having a less liberal attitude about what is proper language, behavior, dress, etc than the wider culture. In some sense, all Christians should be puritan.

"In the world, not of the world" - (John 17:14-15) - comes to mind often when I observe contemporary culture through song or television. There is no sign of self-awareness, by content producers,  of the fact that what they project is not affirmed as good by everyone who sees it, and this is very ironic. I often reflect on the significance of language, attitudes or beliefs which are taken for granted, and feel increasingly more isolated from and marginalized by the culture I live in. I suspect many believers can say the same.

For those who do not, I'd like you to consider a few highly popular recent songs that many young people sing along to and enjoy, I suspect uncritically. I wondered how a Puritan might characterize the lyrics if he heard them, and if it would shock some modern listeners, if only because of their numbness to what they're actually singing along to.

In other words, this is how I would describe the songs.


Carly Rae Jepsen -- "Call Me Maybe"
Young girl improperly pursues a man after lusting over him, boasting over how many other suitors she has had.

Adele -- "Hello From the Other Side"
Older woman mourns the dissolution of a past relationship, desperately trying to reconnect with a man she was once intimate with, because she is lonely and afraid of "running out of time."

Ellie Goulding -- "Love Me Like You Do"
A girl so overcome with lust that she spends the whole song begging a man to take advantage of her sexually.

Taylor Swift -- "Wildest Dreams"
A cynical woman holds no hope for a stable relationship, merely wishing that a man she fornicated with will remember her from time to time.

Sia -- "Chandelier"
A girl who is the 'life of the party' admits that she's becoming an alcoholic as a result of how much she drinks to keep from feeling the pain of her raging depression and emptiness.

Tove Lo -- "Habits"
Woman describes how she became a chronic drug user, prostitute, and developed an eating disorder after a break-up with a man she was very emotionally involved with.

Ariana Grande & Nicki Minaj -- "Side to Side"
A profanity-laden song performed on the Dangerous Woman tour which featured a concert that was targeted by a muslim terrorist. Graphically describes a variety of sex acts, encourages pursuing sexual relationships against the protests of one's friends, and is named after a post-coital gait characterizing some young women.

There's a theme here.

Nearly all new songs that chart describe, whether in positive, negative, or ironic ways, unhealthy romantic relationships...if you can even call them romantic.

I could unpack this in a lot of different ways, but let me make a few short points and be done:

1. The lifestyle promoted by these lyrics also describe terrible consequences for mental and physical health, one's sense of identity, the ability to be content, and the ability to form healthy relationships.

2. If you listen to this sort of music un-ironically, you're allowing yourself to be influenced by it. Does it paint a picture of something you wish to emulate? Please be selective about the messages that you listen to. Especially if you're Christian.

Because,
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. Philippians 4:8
-W

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Spurgeon on Prayer

     “There are times when solitude is better than society, and silence is wiser than speech. We should be better Christians if we were more alone, waiting upon God, and gathering through meditation on His Word spiritual strength for labour in his service. We ought to muse upon the things of God, because we thus get the real nutriment out of them. . . . Why is it that some Christians, although they hear many sermons, make but slow advances in the divine life? Because they neglect their closets, and do not thoughtfully meditate on God's Word. They love the wheat, but they do not grind it; they would have the corn, but they will not go forth into the fields to gather it; the fruit hangs upon the tree, but they will not pluck it; the water flows at their feet, but they will not stoop to drink it. From such folly deliver us, O Lord. . . .”

    "It is interesting to remark how large a portion of Sacred Writ is occupied with the subject of prayer, either in furnishing examples, enforcing precepts, or pronouncing promises. We scarcely open the Bible before we read, “Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord;” and just as we are about to close the volume, the “Amen” of an earnest supplication meets our ear. Instances are plentiful. Here we find a wrestling Jacob—there a Daniel who prayed three times a day—and a David who with all his heart called upon his God. On the mountain we see Elias; in the dungeon Paul and Silas. We have multitudes of commands, and myriads of promises. What does this teach us, but the sacred importance and necessity of prayer? We may be certain that whatever God has made prominent in his Word, he intended to be conspicuous in our lives. If he has said much about prayer, it is because he knows we have much need of it. So deep are our necessities, that until we are in heaven we must not cease to pray. Dost thou want nothing? Then, I fear thou dost not know thy poverty. Hast thou no mercy to ask of God? Then, may the Lord’s mercy show thee thy misery! A prayerless soul is a Christless soul. Prayer is the lisping of the believing infant, the shout of the fighting believer, the requiem of the dying saint falling asleep in Jesus. It is the breath, the watchword, the comfort, the strength, the honour of a Christian. If thou be a child of God, thou wilt seek thy Father’s face, and live in thy Father’s love."
    ~ C H Spurgeon



    I have a personal belief now, developed years ago and after many long nights of prayer, that there is no mystical way in which prayer benefits the Christian in spiritual growth. But I think I can finally understand how Spurgeon could make such a big deal out of it. Since God doesn't audibly talk back to us, the nature of a prayer conversation will begin with thankfulness and supplication, and progress to drawing on memorized Scripture passages (i.e. "meditating on the word") to "talk it out" with God, explaining your reasoning process and in that process coming to discoveries that refine your conduct of speech: you realize that how you were asking could have been wrong/fully motivated, so you alter your requests and acknowledge that He knows best and maybe you oughtn't get what you ask for. You "happenstance" come across new or more profound Theological truths than you had in mind before, simply by thinking about the truths you know. This lets you grow in spiritual wisdom. I think the strength of an active prayer life is an active thought life.

-W

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Spurgeon: "I thought I was doing it all myself"

Born, as all of us are by nature, an Arminian, I still believed the old things I had heard continually from the pulpit, and did not see the grace of God. When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me...I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul—when they were, as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron...

One week-night, when I was sitting in the house of God, I was not thinking much about the preacher's sermon, for I did not believe it. The thought struck me, "How did you come to be a Christian?" I sought the Lord. "But how did you come to seek the Lord?" The truth flashed across my mind in a moment—I should not have sought Him unless there had been some previous influence in my mind to make me seek Him. I prayed, thought I, but then I asked myself, How came I to pray? I was induced to pray by reading the Scriptures. How came I to read the Scriptures? I did read them, but what led me to do so? Then, in a moment, I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, "I ascribe my change wholly to God" (AUTOBIOGRAPHY, pp. 164-5).


-W

Monday, June 19, 2017

Spurgeon: "Calvinism is the Gospel"

I loved the short quote in this, the first time I heard it. It encouraged me, because I had been researching Calvinism and was unsure whether it had been believed through history, or was a recent invention. What had "big-name" pastors and preachers of the past said about it? Spurgeon was a name I'd heard mentioned positively in the theological circles I'd been crossing into. So this served to unify my understanding, and conclude that "these guys are on the same team. We are on the same team."

If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.


The website I chose to use for the source text is Spurgeon.org. Please read the whole sermon, called "In Defense of Calvinism."

-W