Make your own free website on

Mark McCulley
Judge by the Gospel

Letter to
John Reisinger

Dear John,

I agree with Mormons that all are commanded and invited to believe the gospel. But I disagree with them about what is the gospel. I agree with you, John, that the reprobate are invited to believe the gospel. But I disagree with you about what the gospel is. You have an idea of the gospel, a doctrine of the gospel, which hems God in, which misrepresents God, which is idolatry. Your idea is that God loves the reprobate because God invites the reprobate. You so much think this is the way to display the love of God, that you end up with a different gospel than the gospel Jesus preached.

Jesus said, come to Me, all you. You say that there is "nothing before this come". But before this invitation, Jesus identified Himself as the one who reveals the Father and identified the Father as the one who hides things from the reprobate. As I say, we agree that Jesus invites even the reprobate to come. But the difference between us is about which gospel we command and invite everybody to believe. Your gospel presents a God whose love is not stingy but a love which wants to save those God doesnít save. Since God would rather save the elect than damn them, you conclude that God would rather save the reprobate than damn them. But this is not the truth, and this misrepresentation of God leads to more falsehoods.

John, there is still something in you which rejects the gospel which displays all the riches of Godís grace. Instead of preaching that salvation is not conditioned on the sinner, you hold back talking about the glory of God in reprobation. To each and every sinner, we must say: if you are righteous, then there is no room for you. The gospel is about the righteousness of Christ dying for the elect, not about the faith of the elect. To each and every sinner, we must say: if you are reprobate, there is no room for you. Matthews 11:25 " I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to babes."

We are to imitate Jesus in His preaching because we are to be convinced that the only difference between saved and lost is the Father giving a people to His Son and His Son dying for those people. If we hold back that gospel, if we think we are prudent enough to know how to abridge it, we merely show that we ourselves reject the gospel. Though we may give "sovereign grace" much credit, if we will not preach individual election and individual atonement in the gospel, we show that we ourselves still condition salvation on the sinner and not on the cross. We not only misrepresent God; we show ourselves to be idolaters.

I just finished listening to your sermon "The Real Prodigal" from the Bunyan Conference. There is much that you say there with which I can agree. Especially the part about new converts seeing the best in the new and the worst in the old. As a new convert, I can relate to that. I certainly have a keen sense of the sin of believing in a salvation conditioned on the sinner. I certainly have a great shame for having "misrepresented God" for so many years. I was an active idolater, and not until God delivered me to the doctrine of the true gospel did I ever feel ashamed of the things I now hate.

I also liked the "sound bite" about truth not being in the middle but in the extremes. If the extremes are in the Bible, they do not contradict each other, no matter what we may think. So we need to be sure that they are in the Bible, and then teach them. I agree with that. (At the end of course you did talk about balance" and "both sides" which does assume a catholic "middle".)

I also was interested in your profession of love for open discussion. I have asked to meet with you, to talk with you, but that has never happened and now you have used the angry slandering murmurs of Phil Johnson as a an excuse for exercising your authority to end the discussion. So you end up with one person giving "both sides", not only his side but a caricature of his enemies. Two things about this. 1. I know that I cannot assume that everything or even anything in your sermon was about me. You kept saying "these people" and "hypersí. And then you can say to us: if the shoe fits, wear it as I call it: you are "hyper". And if we say that this is a caricature, a cold critical stereotype fitting no individual person, then you say, OK, I wasnít talking about you. Thus you keep the stereotype, but without having to defend it, and without answering for the accusations you have made. But this is what happens when you take both sides, and try to represent the other side without letting the other side represent itself. You are not yet as much unlike Al Martin as you think you are.

Now I am not complaining that you only give one side of things. We all do that. What takes the cake is that you talk about "open discussion".. What I want to say, John, is that you do not know me. You have not heard me. You do not know very much about me. You do not know if I am happy or angry or if I have love in my life. I do know that I am still a real sinner. My confession is not simply that "I repent of the false gospel" I used to believe, or even that "I am repenting of the false gospel I still tend to believe. My confession is that I pretend way too much even when I confess, and that I do not yet see my sin as I should see it, so that the law of God would still condemn even for my confessing the true gospel and for my repenting of the false gospel, were it not for the righteousness of God established for the elect at the cross. Salvation cannot be conditioned on any sinner, not even one who is a Christian.

Now I know that you also profess not to condition salvation on the sinner. You say that, while Arminians may THINK that their salvation is conditioned on them, they are saved but that their salvation is not conditioned on them. In our church we deny that Godís Spirit converts the sheep with a lie or continues to lead the sheep with a lie. Would you say that the elder brother is saved? After all, you say, you are not "stingy with the love of God". Does this mean that God loved the elder brother in spite of his legalism? Since I know that you profess a not-saving but universal love, I am sure that you would say that God does love "in some way" that elder brother. But that is not the real difference here. My question is: is that elder brother saved? Must the one who came home from the hog pen confess that the elder brother is his brother? Back in the days when I became an universalist, I said yes: all are brothers. Let no man say that another man is not his brother.

What do you say? I do not ask if you think he was reprobate in the secret counsels of God. I ask you: is the legalist converted in spite of his legalism? Are the "good people" saved also, despite their being deceived about their sins and about the gospel? as a universalist I said yes. As a new convert to simply accepting Godís testimony, I say no. What do you say? Is the love of God so weak that it cannot save a person who remains a legalist? In spite of his legalism? Is the love of God so weak that it cannot save a person who remains an Arminian? In spite of his Arminianism? My answer is that the love of God is so powerful that it CONVERTS the sinner. The sinner is not saved BECAUSE OF his turning from sin; but the converted sinner does turn from sin. The sinner is not saved BECAUSE OF his faith in the gospel, but the converted sinner does have faith in the gospel. The sinner is not saved BECAUSE he understands and submits to the righteousness established in Christís death for the elect, but the converted sinner will understand and submit to that righteousness. The converted sinner will BECAUSE OF THAT RIGHTEOUNESS. What God did at the cross is not merely "potential"; it actually and powerfully "crucifies" sinners so that they understand that salvation is not conditioned on the sinner. We should not presume that any man who does not know this is our brother. We are not saved BECAUSE OF our perseverance, but converted sinners do persevere.

John, you agree with what I say above about turning from sin, about faith, about perseverance. You can and do make the distinction: not because of, but necessary. It will happen, and until it does, then we cannot say that the gospel has converted a man. But you wonít say it when it comes to submitting to effective atonement. Which means you wonít say it when it comes to being a legalist. Because anybody who says that Christ died for everybody but some of them are not saved IS a legalist; he MUST be looking to the sinner as the difference between saved and lost. Even if the legalist gives his god or election the "credit" for the difference, he MUST locate that difference in himself and not in what Christ did at the cross.

I understand that you believe that Jesus died only for some. But you think knowing about this death is not necessary. It is the cause, sure; but you donít think they need to know itís the cause. And I cannot help thinking of some of my "strict baptist" friends. I do not call them "hypers" (I like to be more specific) but they say that people can be converted without hearing the gospel. They say John the Baptist was, and that people can be converted "direct" without the message of the cross. So it doesnít matter if the elect hear the true gospel or the Arminian gospel or any gospel. I reject this. I know that the reprobate will refuse the gospel. I know that the elect must be made alive in regeneration (on account of imputed righteousness) before they will submit to the gospel. But I also know that people need to hear the gospel before they can believe it. (I Peter 1:22-23). To obey the truth, they must hear the truth. To believe the Word, they must hear the Word. Those who have never heard anything but the Arminian gospel have not yet heard the gospel, and are still lost in their sins.

I know you are not an universalist like I was. You will not say that all men are your brothers. You are very right to focus on the elder brotherís refusal to say that the one who came home was his brother. My question: WERE they brothers? If the elder brother goes on like he is, never repenting of his legalism, is he in the family of God? Your assumption, suited to your purpose of attacking "these people" who say that Arminians are lost, is that both are brothers. But that is a false assumption. Though Cain and Abel are brothers in the flesh, both creatures of God, made in the image of God, both are not saved. The one who came home is saved; the elder brother is not saved. They ultimately do not have the same home or the same gospel or the same God.

Which means we canít take your universalist pose which acts as if God loves everybody, in spite of their rejection of the gospel. We need to know what the gospel is. And we need to say that those who reject the gospel are condemned already, not only because of their sins against natural revelation but also because they refused the invitation. John 3:17-21 "He who DOES THE TRUTH comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

There is no pleasing God without faith in God and Godís gospel. We "do the truth" only when we confess that salvation is not caused by our deeds but "done in God". The "good works" of Christians are necessary but they are not "good works" unless the sinner has understood that his salvation is conditioned on what God did at the cross and not on these works. Faith must exclude itself as the condition of salvation, or it is not faith in the gospel and is not pleasing to God. Works must exclude works as the condition of salvation, or they are not Ďgood works" and the people who do them are elder brothers, not yet in the family of God, but still lost in their sins. Elder brothers do not "do the truth". They can talk much of their works, but they will not bring these works to the light of the true gospel, for the true gospel would say that their works were not acceptable.

You donít know me, John. You say that there are some you are proud to have as your enemies, and then some who you still love, but who donít know what you are saying, who are right to be upset, if you were saying what they think you say. I read your essays. I listen to your tapes. I think I know what you are saying. But we donít know each other. I know that you profess to have been saved while an Arminian. You know I profess to be a new convert. Besides that, about all we have to go on is what we say and how we say it. I suppose we could accuse each other of saying what we say "ungraciously". But that is a very subjective thing, and very difficult to say when we donít talk.

Remember they said that Paul was a hard man in print but a wimp face to face? Or something like that. I could say that you sound very critical and know-it-all in the pulpit but "as a person", you are very "nice", even timid. But we donít know each other, even though our homes are only about a hour apart. So the best I can do is to once again try to show how you misrepresent me. Yes, if the crap doesnít stick, you can say: I wasnít throwing it at you. But I just want to be clear what I am saying and what I am not saying. Maybe this is a case of thinking you know what I say when you really donít.

You say that "these people" think that "the only thing that matters is if you believe the five points. It doesnít matter if you pray or witness, if you believe the five points." Let me say, John, not only is this NOT what I think but also that neither you nor I know anybody who thinks that. I pray for you, because I think it matters. I do not pray for you because I think that my salvation (or yours) is conditioned on my praying. I do not pray to get assurance, I pray because I have assurance. Similarly, John, I witness to you, because I think it matters. I have not given up. Not because I think my salvation is conditioned on my witnessing.

Indeed, I would be urgent with you. The gospel is different, much richer than you think it is. It is a great and wonderful thing that salvation is conditioned only on the death of Christ for the elect. What you call an unnecessary and unhelpful "qualifying" of the gospel is all about the glory of God in the gospel. It is comforting that people God saves must know themselves to be sinners if God is to save them. It is a great burden off my deceitful wicked heart for me to finally define sin as God defines it, and thus to confess my sin of conditioning salvation on the sinner. It is false comfort to tell the sinner that he can define his sin anyway he wants, and so define the gospel any way he wants.

I would be urgent for I am happy in this good news. Jesus did not die for the reprobate. If you donít submit to the righteousness, then I am comforted to know that there never was any righteousness for you. For if there was a righteousness for you but that righteousness did not save you, then that righteousness will not save me either. There is no difference between me and any reprobate person EXCEPT that righteousness. I do not know need to know who is and is not reprobate to gossip this good news that Christ did not die for those who reject the invitation. I do not need to know who is elect to shout the glad tidings that all the elect will hear the voice of the Shepherd instead of the voice of the multitude of Arminians.

I am urgent because I am a new convert. I know what itís like to look to myself and to be too proud to come. What will people say after all these years of me being a Calvinist if I confess that I was lost? I am such a sinner, and have so many regrets, and have been on so many "kicks", and what will it look like to people if I say to them that I was even lost all those years? John, I am urgent, because I know the temptation of all that. and also I know the great, great joy of one day saying: I donít care. I will let all the crap go. I donít care what anybody says, because I believe that gospel about that righteousness. I rejoice in what God says about saved and lost. I will go by what God says, not by what I think would be right. I believed unto righteousness. I repented of all other gospels. With everything in me, I plead with you to do the same.

You say that "these people" say that all who donít believe the five points are lost.

But what I really say is that "I was a five pointer and I was lost."

OK, you say, I covered that: "these people" also say that all who didnít hear the gospel from a preacher who believe the five points are lost.

I want to deal with both points. About the first, I say that all who donít believe that the righteousness established at the cross for the elect saves the elect are lost. Now we can and should discuss the book of Acts, the gospel of John and every other book to see if I am right or not. But first understand: I am not saying the five points are the gospel.

You can believe every one of the five points and still go to hell. Even if I had never become an universalist, even if I stuck always to the five points, I would have still gone to hell, if the Lord had not made me to understand that the righteousness of God at the cross is the only cause of salvation. Many say that Christ only died for some who still say that the reason the some are saved is not the cross but what God does in them.

So the next time you want to have an open discussion, by saying what the other side would have said if you had invited them to say it, make sure that you say itís about this "righteousness". Itís not only about tolerating Arminians; itís about the sin of conditioning salvation on the sinner. There are many folks who sincerely believe every one of the five points in response to the Arminians who still do not know the gospel, and that is why they do not feel the least bit of ashamed of having once conditioned salvation on the sinner. They still do condition salvation on what God does in the sinner, even though they believe the five points.

I certainly do not want to take myself too seriously, or make too much of my own "spin" on how I say things. But fearing God , I must ask you, John: are you ashamed of ever conditioning salvation on the sinner. Or are you, like the elder brother, one who still claims never to have sinned in that way?

But to the second point: "they say" that the preacher you heard when you got saved had to be a five pointer. No, the preacher had to preach that righteousness. And that righteousness is effective atonement. He had to preach that. I am not in reaction to the five points of Arminians. You can deny every one of their points and still be trying to establish your own righteousness, still ignorant of the righteousness of God. I ask you, are those who are ignorant of the righteousness of God Ďbrothers" of those who are committed to Christ as their righteousness. I say no. Not in the same family. As Jesus said to the "elder brothers" in John 8, we donít have the same father.

I am glad that you are at least talking about the preacher and about what you heard when you profess to have been "effectually called". Unlike the "strict baptists" I mentioned earlier, we agree that both regeneration and the gospel are needed before a man is converted. Understanding the gospel is necessary. We agree about that. But we do not agree about the gospel, and about who God is, if you say that God saves a man whichever of our gospels he believes. Now you could count numbers (they are on your side) and say: OK, if they believe your gospel, then they are lost, because your gospel adds to grace the condition of understanding the gospel. But this I have already discussed. It is necessary, not a condition. The same as you would say about perseverance or faith or repentance from sin. If a man told you he was a carnal Christian who had no intention of turning from his sin, would you say to him: welcome to the party, brother? I donít think so. Why then are you so critical toward those of us who refuse to call brothers those with another gospel?

We have different gospels. But my gospel is not conditioned on the sinner understanding, for I say that this understanding is a result not a condition. Though the way you describe my gospel is not correct, it is correct to say that we have two different gospels. But you seem to say that people with different gospels can still be brothers! Maybe this is a case where I am not understanding what you are saying. Maybe you are saying that what you believe and what the Arminian believes is really still the same gospel anyway. And that may be more true than you think! If you really do think that God saves people while still leaving them think that salvation is conditioned on them, then your God is very much like the God of the Arminian.

Anyway, I hope you now know that I donít accept this two part description as being true of me. Itís not about the five points. Itís about sins of the elect imputed to Christ, about imputed righteousness. And now you can say that you werenít talking about me. In my experience legalists who like to murmur and mutter about you, like to do this to somebody else, and not to you directly. I have often wondered about Paulís relation to the false teachers in Galatia BEFORE he wrote that letter. Did he talk to them face to face before he wrote? Maybe, but maybe not: for their different gospel was being "secretly brought in" (2:4). They came with "stealth." Perhaps they preached sermons about the ungracious manner in which Paul was conducting himself, but without using Paulís name and without sitting down to talk to Paul directly. I do know what Paul said. My gospel or their gospel. Not: this is a controversy about the law. Not: this is a difference of opinion about sanctification. Not: the elder brother is in the family too, but he needs to "lighten up". No. Two gospels. Christ will not profit those who believe one of those gospels. Those who advocate the "new perspective (either the all-in-people, or the final justification by works people) have a different gospel than Calvin did. They are not all brothers. And the battle is not only about who will be preaching the right gospel ten years from now. The question is: who shall be saved? Shall those who condition salvation on the sinner be saved along with those who understand and submit to the righteousness of God?

John, you go too quickly to consequences, without considering that Christians are ambassadors of the Lord who do not "regard anybody according to the flesh" (II Cor 5:16). According to numbers, and according to our own flesh that wants to say we were saved while still ignorant of the gospel, many should be accepted as brothers to whom the Lord will say, "I never knew you." According to the flesh, we are to say to both Cain and Abel: you are both sincerely worshipping God with two different gospels which are finally just one gospel, and so you are brothers.

John, you are too quick to say, if that gospel is true, all these people would be lost, therefore it must not be true. That is what the Pharisees said: if thatís so, the wrong people are being saved, and the wrong people are being lost!

I would urge you to study more carefully Cain and Abel. I John 3 says that Abel "did righteousness". As in John 3:21, Abel "did the truth". Cain did not. Why was Cain not saved? Because he murdered? No. he murdered because he was not saved. And we know he was not saved because his works were evil. The evil works here are not the murder but the "sincere worship" Cain offered. Cain could not have good works because Cain had the wrong gospel. And so Cain and Abel were not brothers. But you would make it out as though Abel is the elder brother if Abel is not able to call Cain his brother, if Abel is not able to enter into worship and religious fellowship with Cain.

Back when I was lost, 20 years ago, I used to drive 100 miles to attend a sovereign grace church (in Hampton, VA-- George Fletcher, didnít know that? you donít know me) . But there are many such churches you can attend but still never hear about the righteousness revealed in the gospel. And even if you do hear it, if you do not submit to it, then you are still lost, no matter how strong a grip youíve got on your pet "five doctrines".

There is only one kind of people: sinners. There are only two kinds of people: those who believe the gospel and those who donít. Justified sinners and sinners who will be condemned for their sins, including the sin of rejecting the gospel. Both are true; no contradiction.

There is only one gospel: the righteousness. There are many gospels, all of them false except the gospel revealed in the Bible.

John, if you no longer want an open discussion with "these people", the least you can do is to stop playing "kill the messenger". Nobody I know is saying that they are not a sinner. But some are saying that itís a damning sin to reject the gospel of effective atonement. And others are saying that God "stoops" to save even those who say that God conditions salvation on the sinner. In other words, God not only saves idolaters (praise God for that, since I was one when I was a lost Calvinist!), but God saves these sinners using the idolatry as the message by which He saves them and THEN LEAVES THEM IN THEIR IDOLATRY. They go on conditioning salvation on the sinner, but we are to count them as brothers anyway. If a preacher says: go on in immorality, you say "misrepresenting God" (but still a brother?). But if preacher says: go on in Arminianism, saved anyway, you say that this is showing that God is not stingy with His love.

Let me tell you something very important. God is not only the justifier of the nonworker and of the ungodly worker, but God is just. You can call that "stingy" if you want, but God calls it His righteousness. He will be glorified in the salvation of sinners, and in the damnation of those who persist in saying that a "gracious" God accepts instead of perfection the faith of the sinner as making the difference between saved and lost. God is not stingy on His love to the Son: if one person for whom the Son died is lost, then God is misrepresented All those who believe that universal atonement lie are lost idolaters. God does not love His people more than His Son, for His love of the Sonís righteousness (His death for the elect at the cross) makes ALL the difference between saved and lost. Sure, you may say. But you donít have to know that to get the benefit of it. What do you need to know? Is the elder brother in the family anyway, despite his theological mistake about his own goodness?

In Galatians, Paul did not accept all who professed to be Christians as his brothers. He said: they are cursed. The fruit of the Spirit is the result of the cross; the cross does not depend on the fruit of the Spirit. Those who bear the fruit of the Spirit have had their flesh "crucified" for them, first at the cross, and then at conversion, when they understood that the cross was all the difference and they none of it. (Gal 5:24). Arminianism is the work of the flesh and appeals to the desire of the flesh to condition salvation on the sinner. Even when this flesh says "but my faith is not a work", the flesh is deceived and deceiving, because faith in faith as the difference and ignorance of the righteousness as the difference turns faith into a work, no matter what the flesh tries to call it. Romans 9:11--that the purpose of election might stand, not of works". No "election of grace" (Romans 11:5), no grace.

When Paul would not call the legalists his brothers, that was not evidence that Paul never knew grace in his own life. Rather, it means that Paul was ashamed of having himself been an "elder brother", and knew that he was lost then. Read Philippians 3 again. He didnít say he learned some more stuff. He said that as long as he had the righteousness to be found in the law (conditioning salvation on the sinner), that he was lost. He didnít say: I have always been a brother, and was a brother even then. He says his worship then was crap. And crap is not something we try to keep around; we are ashamed of it. But no man is ashamed of Arminianism by nature. By nature we are all Arminians. Romans 6:21 What fruit did you then have? NONE. ..."in the things of which you are now ashamed of". John, when you became an Arminian, you were already ashamed of some things before then, and after that, maybe more. But until you are ashamed of saying that Christís death was for those in hell, then you are still free of the righteousness established for the elect in the death of Christ.

Your sermon is a confession that you can receive the immoral but not those with a different gospel. And that is as it should be. If I have a false gospel, then you should NOT receive me or call me your brother. (II john 9). You should not feel guilty or introspective about not receiving those with a false gospel into your fellowship. You can tell people with a false gospel what the gospel is in a gracious manner without having to say that they are brothers already without the gospel.

Your sermon is a confession that you can receive the immoral but not those with a different gospel. And that is as it should be. If I have a false gospel, then you should NOT receive me or call me your brother. (II john 9). You should not feel guilty or introspective about not receiving those with a false gospel into your fellowship. You can tell people with a false gospel what the gospel is in a gracious manner without having to say that they are brothers already without the gospel.

So don't feel bad about the lack of fellowship. There could be open discussion without that, if you wanted it. I am a new convert, but I have learned this last year that I need to continually take sides with the Scripture against myself. Agreeing that no Christian can be the enemy of another Christian is not the same as agreeing that those with a false gospel (you or me) are Christians. It is not coldness and hardness that makes me say this but a love for the gospel and a concern for you when you sound so much like the universalist I was. No, you don't say that all are brothers. But neither do you say which gospel by which we judge who is a brother.

I liked the Lloyd Jones quotation you used. "But I am working at it". Then you say: then you are not saved. What if a person says: Christ died for all sinners, I am a sinner, and thus Christ died for me? Then what do you say: OK, you are saved, but there are some things I need to teach you about how you said that? I don't say that. I say not all are saved. Not all are brothers. If the elder brother continues to condition salvation on himself, then I can know that Jesus did not die for him. Whatever the elder brother does or doesn't do, and whatever you do or don't do, I can tell you that Jesus did not die for all sinners. And the good news is that the death of Jesus actually saves sinners, all the sinners Jesus for whom died . And then I say: believe this gospel, and commit yourself to this Christ described in this gospel, and you will be saved. It's the only gospel there is. He's the only Christ there is.

There are no sinners too bad to be saved. There are some sinners who are too good to be saved. In reality of course they are bad because they think they are good enough to be saved, not because they call their goodness a work. They don't do that. They say that "faith is not a work but a receiving" They think their goodness is their receiving, for which they give their god the credit to make them good receivers. They are the good folks who say: thank you God for not making me like that cold proud "doctrinaire" elder brother. Oh, God, I know you loved everybody, and I know that Jesus died for everybody, even for that elder brother. And I should love the elder brother too, and in a spirit of graciousness, accept even him as my brother. But oh, God thank you that you made me different from the elder brother, so that I can be saved even though you loved everybody. Your love was not stingy. But neither was your love enough to save that elder brother. But I am special because I am not like the elder brother. Thank you God for making me special. And also for the cross, which of course was for everybody, even people who are colder and less gracious than me.

John, I wonder how you felt when you walked off that platform the night you preach that sermon on the "real prodigal". You got your share of laughs, of vindication from the group for which you speak. But I can't help wondering what the sermon did for you. Did it make you sad? or happy? Did it make you less angry, less critical, more fruitful? Did you that night pray "thank you that I am not the real prodigal"? This last year, I have begun to see that I was and still am a real prodigal. In my flesh I want to speak peace to all the people I know and like. I want to act as if the precious blood of Jesus were shed for everybody and as though everybody was my brother. I am not only saying that I WAS like this (when I was an universalist or something close). I am saying that, if salvation were conditioned on me, then I would still be lost, for I do not yet hate the false gospel as I should. It is only the power of the cross which has broken me so that I can say today that I "do the truth". Like the sinner Abel, I practice righteousness only as I submit to the gospel of righteousness.

John, I invite you to join me in that gospel as another real prodigal.

    It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
    Than to divide the spoil with the proud.
    He who gives attention to the word will find good,
    And blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
    The wise in heart will be called understanding,
    And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
    Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
    But the discipline of fools is folly.
    The heart of the wise instructs his mouth,
    And adds persuasiveness to his lips.
    Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
    Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.
    There is a way which seems right to a man,
    But its end is the way of death. (Prov 16:19-25)

Mark McCulley
(717) 738-3884

Copyright © 2000 by Mark McCulley. All rights reserved.