Telling the Truth About Charles Finney

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Those, of course, were not my words, I assume you are quoting from Finney??? If so, then I would want to start by looking at whatever article or treatise it is quoted from. Secondly, I would want to understand what the author meant by 'secure.' It was written, apparently, in the mid 1800's, and word meanings have morphed a bit since then. Honestly, I don't feel like I have a dog in the fight, I am curious, but not willing to invest the time to research the docs. I just am interested in fairplay here.

Word games.

You mean to tell me that "secure" does not mean the same thing today as it did in 1851 when Finney wrote his Systematic Theology?

Word games.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟55,139.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Word games.

You mean to tell me that "secure" does not mean the same thing today as it did in 1851 when Finney wrote his Systematic Theology?

As for the denoted or connoted meaning, I don't know, would need to check. As for what the writer intended, I would need to read the entire treatise. Accuracy is the issue here.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As for the denoted or connoted meaning, I don't know, would need to check. As for what the writer intended, I would need to read the entire treatise. Accuracy is the issue here.

Accuracy?!? :scratch:

Let me quote it again for you:

It is not founded in Christ's literally suffering the exact penalty of the law for them, and in this sense literally purchasing their justification and eternal salvation.

In plain language, Christ's death was not able to purchase our justification or eternal salvation.

Acording to Finney:

Perseverance in faith and obedience, or in consecration to God, is also an unalterable condition of justification, or of pardon and acceptance with God. By this language in this connexion, you will of course understand me to mean, that perseverance in faith and obedience is a condition, not of present, but of final or ultimate acceptance and salvation

The only way to eternal life is to have faith in God, consecrate yourself to Him, and perseverance is a condition not of this time, but of our ultimate acceptance and salvation before God.

Charles Finney denies that Jesus, bearing our sins upon Himself, could not pay our penalty:

Some have regarded the atonement simply in the light of the payment of a debt; and have represented Christ as purchasing the elect of the Father,

It is naturally impossible,

The scriptures plainly tell us that we are "purchased with his own blood." -Acts 20:28 (KJV)

Charles Finney denies all this. As Ripley says: "Believe it or Not" it makes no difference to me.

But I refuse to hold up as a "godly man" and one who "with a heart and passion kin to that of Paul the apostle" when he so clearly denies the doctrines of the scriptures.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟55,139.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well, like I said before, I would need to see the entire document. At any rate, not gonna lose any sleep over this one, and gotta head off to bed. Without knowing anything firsthand about the man's teachings, all I can say is that if Billy Graham spoke favorably about him, then that says a lot. And I KNOW Billy Graham believes in salvation by grace and justification. Anyhow, done for the night.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
all I can say is that if Billy Graham spoke favorably about him, then that says a lot.

And I'll repeat what I said 3 pages ago.

The Catholic Church approved of the Nazi movement of the 1930's, and, they provided escapes for Nazi war criminals.

It is accepted that Catholic priests, notably Hudal and Draganović, were actively involved in smuggling wanted war criminals. What is disputed is the extent to which their actions were sanctioned by higher authorities within the Church. Aarons and Loftus conclude: "the evidence confirms that a small cabal of Vatican officials coordinated the mass evacuation of Fascist fugitives to Argentina, Australia, Canada, and of course, the United States. Under the direction of Pope Pius XII, Vatican officials such as Monsignor Giovanni Montini (later Pope Pius VI) supervised one of the greatest obstructions of justice in modern history"

Aarons and Loftus, 1992, p. xii.

Source

Does that mean what they did was right?

Now don't go getting your dandruf up, what I mean by the above statement does not reflect upon Catholicism as a whole. Rather, there were certain Bishops, in control of the Catholic Churches in Germany at the time of the Nazi movement who gave a nod to Nazism in the 1930's.

Source

Source


Billy Graham giving approval of Finney automatically makes him right?

Theodore Rosevelt illegally imprisoned German Americans and Japaneese Americans during WW2 based solely on the notion that although they were Americans, because they had ties to Japan or Germany, they were "high risk" citizens. And Congress backed him. Even though many were born in America, Americans by birth!

Did that make it right?

You approve of a man who denies of the Atonement as provided by Christ, but you reject a man who preached it (John Calvin)? :scratch:

Strange world we live in.

Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of Diospolis and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage. These condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

This man teaches a form of Pelagianism and he is hearlded as a "godly man" and "a man akin to the Apostle Paul".

This is indeed a strange world we live in.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Lest we forget, Charles Finney also taught:

So also sinners may see, that they are not to wait for a physical regeneration or influence, but must submit to, and embrace, the truth, if they ever expect to be saved...sinners are most likely to be regenerated while sitting under the sound of the gospel, while listening to the clear exhibition of truth...Sinners must not wait for and expect physical omnipotence to regenerate them...This view of regeneration shows that the sinner's dependence upon the Holy Spirit arises entirely out of his own voluntary stubbornness, and that his guilt is all the greater, by how much the more perfect this kind of dependence is.

Finney said sinners must not wait for regeneration, they must upon hearing the word, race down the asle and repent.

Finney said that hearing the gospel is enough to regenerate a person.

Finney said that a person must not wait for divine "onmipotentce" to regenerate them.

Finney taught that if you wait on the Holy Spirit to regenerate you, that arises out of your own stubbornness and that increases your guilt.

Yet scriptures represent "regeneration" as a work of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5)

Scriptures, Jesus (the God-man) taught that one of the works of the Holy Spirit was to convict the world of sin. (cf. John 16:8)

If you do not wait upon the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sins, and you go and repent, is it really repentance?

No!

That kind of repentance is no better than the seed which fell "by the way side". (cf. Mt. 13:4)

That kind of repentance is no better than the seed which fell on "stoney ground". (cf. Mt. 13:5-6)

That kind of repentance is no better than the seed which fell "among the thorns". (Mt. 13:7)

If the goodness of God don't lead you to repentance (cf. Rom. 2:4) is it really repentance?

No!

"For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation" -2 Cor. 7:10 (KJV)

Yet Finney denies this!

If I witness to and led a person to God, have I regenerated that person?

No!

But accroding to Finney, "men regenerate each other."

I have.

Even regarding the very notion of regeneration, Charles Finney denies and states that:

physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to human intelligence; and should be laid aside

Yea...right.

A "godly man" who is "akin to the Apostle Paul".

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A final thought.

It is truly sad that people have forgotten the promises of Christ and what the scriptures say.

Charles Finney said:

It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one;

Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, Lecture 35, Extent of Atonement

Source

What a sad day it is when people do not understand what a "surety" is.

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testamant:

"egguoV" Formed from "en" and an unattested subst. "guh" or "guV" (--> hollow hand). This gives us "egguaw", "to pleage", "to engage"; then "egguoV", agj. "offering security," subst. "o egguoV" "guarantor", i.e., the one who accepts legal obligation (for payment etc) in a bond. Xenoph. Vect. 4,20; Aristot. Oec., II, p. 1350a, 19 ("kaqistanai touV egguoV twn eikosi talantwn"); Aeschin. Ep., 11, 12; Plut. De Elephant., 8, 19; P.Hamb., 24, 17. "egguoV" is also found in the LXX as in 2 Macc. 10:28, In Sir. 29:15 we see how far the pledge may go: "caritaV egguou uh epilaqh, edwken gar thn yuchn autou uper sou:" the "egguoV" may have to guarantee the other with his life.(1)

This links up with the only NT passage in which the meatphor is used, namely Heb. 7:22. Like the rest of the NT, Hebrews speaks of the present possession [emphasis here mine] of the gifts and powers of the kingdom of God (12:12 ff.). Yet salvation finds fulfillment or completion only in the future (4:1; 6:11; 9:15; 10:36). Hebrews emphasises particularly this element of hope in salvation, and thus gives prominence to the promises of God. Promises, however, demand assurances or guarantees. In distinction from the OT, Hebrews does not find these in the words or oaths of God (6:17 f.). As in early Christianity generally, present and future are linked to the divine action in Jesus. Thinking in terms of the promises of God, Hebrews finds in Jesus the Guarantor. With His life, death, and ascention Jesus has given us the assurance (cf. Sir. 29:15 f.) that the beginning of the saving work of God will necessarily be followed by its completion.

(1) "egguoV" A. Wslde-J. Pokorny, Vergleichendes Worterbuch d. indog. Sprachen, I, (1927), 636 f.; F. Partsch., Griech. Burgschaftsrecht, I, (1909), 113 ff., 228 ff., 281 ff; W. Prellwitz, Homeric "amfiguheiV", Der Kunstler, Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachforschung, 46 (1914), 169 ff., J. Behm, Der Begriff diaqhkh im NT, (1912) 77; E. Lohmeyer, Diatheke (1913), 145; Mitteis-Wilcken, II, 1, 264 ff.; C. Schwegler, De Aeschinis quae feruntur epistulis (1913), 29ff. Cf. Preisigke Wrot., I, 410; Schwegler, op. cit.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, Editor, Geoffery W. Bromiley, Translator, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Mi., Copyright 1964, Vol. II, "egguoV", p. 329, Herbert Preisker, Commenting.

Jesus Christ, by way of His atonement, death, burial, resurrection, and ascention, stands as our "surety", our "co-signer" (for lack of better words), our "Guarantor". If the promises of God, eternal life through Jesus shed blood, His atonement for sin, should fail, as the "Guarantor", our "surety", Jesus would have to go to the Lake of Fire and suffer in our stead.

This very idea, is confirmed by John Gill in his commentary on Hebrews 7:22:

the extent of its administration is larger, reaching to Gentiles as well as Jews; and besides, it is now actually ratified and confirmed by the blood of Christ, which is therefore called the blood of the everlasting covenant: and of this testament or covenant Christ is the “surety”; the word signifies one that draws nigh: Christ drew nigh to his Father in the council of peace, and undertook to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people he substituted himself in their place and stead; he interposed between the creditor and the debtor, and became surety for the payment of the debts of the latter, and so stood engaged for them, and in their room: Christ is not the surety for the Father to his people, but for them to the Father; as to satisfy for their sins, to work out a righteousness for them, to preserve and keep them, and make them happy; which is an instance of matchless love.

Source

That is what surety means. Jesus is our "surety", He has secured for us, atonement, redemption, and reconcilation by His death on the cross for us!

Praise God!

Halleluiah!

Excuse me while get happy!

You may not agree with John Gill, but by godffrey, that is what it is!

From Barnes Notes on the NT, we read:

Was Jesus made a surety.
The word surety egguov— occurs nowhere else in the New Testament...It properly means, a bondsman; one who pledges his name, property, or influence, that a certain thing shall be done. When a contract is made, a debt contracted, or a note given, a friend often becomes the security in the case, and is himself responsible if the terms of the contract are not complied with. In the case of the new covenant between God and man, Jesus is the "security," or the bondsman. But of what, and to whom, is he the surety? It cannot be that he is a bondsman for God that he will maintain the covenant, and be true to the promise which he makes, as Crellius supposes, for we need no suck "security" of the Divine faithfulness and veracity.

It cannot be that he becomes responsible for the Divine conduct in any way—- for no such responsibility is needed or possible. But it must mean, that he is the security or bondsman on the part of man; He is the pledge that we shall be saved. He becomes responsible, so to speak, to law and justice, that no injury shall be done by our salvation, though we are sinners. He is not a security that we shall be saved, at any rate, without holiness, repentance, faith, or true religions for he never could enter into a suretyship of that kind; but his suretyship extends to this point, that the law shall be honoured; that all its demands shall be met; that we may be saved though we have violated it, and that its terrific penalty shall not fall upon us. The case is this:— A sinner becomes a true penitent, and enters heaven. It might be said that he does this over a broken law; that God treats the good and bad alike, and that no respect has been paid to the law or the penalty in his salvation.​


Here the great Surety comes in, and says that it is not so. He has become responsible for this; he the surety, the pledge, that all proper honour shall be paid to justice, and that the same good effects shall ensue as if the penalty of the law had been fully borne. He himself has died to honour the law, and to open a way by which its penalty may be fully remitted consistently with justice, and he becomes the everlasting pledge or security to law, to justice, to the universe, that no injury shall result from the pardon and salvation of the sinner. According to this view, no man can rely on the suretyship of Jesus but he who expects salvation on the terms of the gospel. The suretyship is not at all that he shall be saved in his sins, or that he shall enter heaven no matter what life he leads; it is only that if he believes, repents, and is saved, no injury shall be clone to the universe, no dishonour to the law. For this the Lord Jesus is responsible.


Source


Praise God He has secured for us, atonement, redemption, and reconcilation by His death on the cross for us!​

Thank you Jesus!​

Thank you God!​

God Bless​

Till all are one.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟55,139.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Hmmmm, now this seems to be headed a somewhat different direction. The TDNT does not appear to support what you have been saying about the nature of the atonement. Jobn Gill certainly does, but then again, he is known as a High Calvinist expositor. This then raises significant questions about the assertions which have been made. Perhaps it is time to take a careful look at this question. What was the nature of Christ's atonement? Time to start a separate thread, apart from any questions about Charles Finney.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Well, like I said before, I would need to see the entire document. At any rate, not gonna lose any sleep over this one, and gotta head off to bed. Without knowing anything firsthand about the man's teachings, all I can say is that if Billy Graham spoke favorably about him, then that says a lot. And I KNOW Billy Graham believes in salvation by grace and justification. Anyhow, done for the night.

I also love Billy Graham and was blessed to see many people come to faith at one of his crusades many years ago - I also hold him in high regard.

But I don't understand why he is being looked to as the final authority on this or any issue. It is quite possible that Graham didn't have all the facts in regards to Finney. In fact that is my sincerist hope - because if he did have all the facts and STILL spoke favorably of Finney then my esteem of Billy Graham will sadly be lessoned. Let's face it - based on what has been presented here in regards to Finney's teachings it can honestly be said that he led no one to a saving faith in Christ but to something completely different that is not the gospel.

Also - Graham taught the security of the believer - yet you don't agree on that. So why give credence to what he says about Finney but not this?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

archierieus

Craftsman
Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟55,139.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
But I don't understand why he is being looked to as the final authority on this or any issue. It is quite possible that Graham didn't have all the facts in regards to Finney.

I don't know. I do understand that he has a place of honor in the Billy Graham Center. I would expect nothing less than strict integrity from Billy Graham, and suspect that with his international standing and exposure whatever the info about Charles Finney would have been brought to his attention. but that is IMO.

Let's face it - based on what has been presented here in regards to Finney's teachings it can honestly be said that he led no one to a saving faith in Christ but to something completely different that is not the gospel.

And that is the key--'what has been presented here.' What has been presented here are snippets from both sides, and I long ago discovered the importance of reading the entire document or treatise. As it is said, there are always two sides. But I really don't feel driven to do so in this case, it is not that big a thing to me personally. I do, however, have an interest in fairplay.

Also - Graham taught the security of the believer - yet you don't agree on that. So why give credence to what he says about Finney but not this?

There are some things taught by a variety of Christian teachers which I do not agree with. There is wide disagreement between Christian teachers themselves on such matters. But God can use them all to accomplish good. I believe God works through a wide variety of teachers and believers, even though their knowledge may not be complete or correct in every detail. God will no doubt continue to guide them to a clearer understanding of Bible truth, whatever the issue may be.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟20,928.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know. I do understand that he has a place of honor in the Billy Graham Center. I would expect nothing less than strict integrity from Billy Graham, and suspect that with his international standing and exposure whatever the info about Charles Finney would have been brought to his attention. but that is IMO.



And that is the key--'what has been presented here.' What has been presented here are snippets from both sides, and I long ago discovered the importance of reading the entire document or treatise. As it is said, there are always two sides. But I really don't feel driven to do so in this case, it is not that big a thing to me personally. I do, however, have an interest in fairplay.



There are some things taught by a variety of Christian teachers which I do not agree with. There is wide disagreement between Christian teachers themselves on such matters. But God can use them all to accomplish good. I believe God works through a wide variety of teachers and believers, even though their knowledge may not be complete or correct in every detail. God will no doubt continue to guide them to a clearer understanding of Bible truth, whatever the issue may be.

Fairplay? Could have fooled me. There is enough documentation posted on Finney's erroneous teachings on this thread to fill up a novel. Hardly what I would call snipets. Rather than taking an honest look at them you say the guy is alright because Billy Graham says he's alright.

So how about Charles Spurgeon - one of the great Calvinist preachers of the 1800's. Billy Graham had a lot of good things to say about him as well. Since Billy Graham endorsed him does he get your nod of approval too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammster
Upvote 0

archierieus

Craftsman
Supporter
May 24, 2008
6,682
689
Petaluma, Califiornia
Visit site
✟55,139.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Fairplay? Could have fooled me. There is enough documentation posted on Finney's erroneous teachings on this thread to fill up a novel. Hardly what I would call snipets.

To draw small quotes from here and there is not linking to the entire document. If someone were to do that, then it could be studied as a whole.

Rather than taking an honest look at them you say the guy is alright because Billy Graham says he's alright.

Rather than reach a conclusion based on selected quotes, I would reserve judgment until being able to examine the treatise as a whole. But if Billy Graham speaks favorably, that certainly does have some weight IMO.

So how about Charles Spurgeon - one of the great Calvinist preachers of the 1800's. Billy Graham had a lot of good things to say about him as well. Since Billy Graham endorsed him does he get your nod of approval too?

Indeed, Spurgeon without doubt had many inspiring and helpful thoughts to share. On these threads, I would raise questions if he or Finney or any other commentator were to be cited as a doctrinal authority or evidence of Bible truth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

student ad x

Senior Contributor
Feb 20, 2009
9,835
805
just outside the forrest
✟29,077.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
MOD HAT ON

239644-albums1818-20895.jpg


Thread moved to Christian History....... from Soteriology

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is pathetic!!!! It is amazing how people ridicule others and act like they are the final word of God interpreters. I have seen almost no calvinist here to show Christ like love. All I see is hatred, aggressiveness and meanness to people who don't accept their theological views of predestination or free will.
Well, you'll just have to take that up with your cohorts, because none of you will listen to us. The pathos is fairly obviously that they're posting anti-Calvinists positions, and we're defending against them.

If you have a problem with allowing for all views, then you'll really need to talk to those who are attacking Calvinism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
To draw small quotes from here and there is not linking to the entire document. If someone were to do that, then it could be studied as a whole.
... while offending copyrights. Buy yourself a copy. The citation's there.
Rather than reach a conclusion based on selected quotes, I would reserve judgment until being able to examine the treatise as a whole. But if Billy Graham speaks favorably, that certainly does have some weight IMO.
But then there's ...
Indeed, Spurgeon without doubt had many inspiring and helpful thoughts to share. On these threads, I would raise questions if he or Finney or any other commentator were to be cited as a doctrinal authority or evidence of Bible truth.
Or Billy Graham? I think the question you're raising is against your own statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndOne
Upvote 0

czali

Newbie
Oct 19, 2009
227
20
✟7,958.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Once saved always saved! His rod.. and His staff, they comfort me!! I may not be perfect but He is, how then does His salvation, in me, fail? I may sometimes fall.. he picks me up.. that bump on my head from that fall takes some time to mend i will admit... But God never fails and will not fail me. I think after reading this thread i will not bother to read finney. thanks Deacon Dean!
 
Upvote 0
E

everready

Guest
spurgeon.jpg


Saturday, February 06, 2010
This Morning's Meditation
C. H. Spurgeon

"Praying always."—.

WHAT multitudes of prayers we have put up from the first moment when we learned to pray. Our first prayer was a prayer for ourselves; we asked that God would have mercy upon us, and blot out our sin. He heard us. But when He had blotted out our sins like a cloud, then we had more prayers for ourselves. We have had to pray for sanctifying grace, for constraining and restraining grace; we have been led to crave for a fresh assurance of faith, for the comfortable application of the promise, for deliverance in the hour of temptation, for help in the time of duty, and for succour in the day of trial. We have been compelled to go to God for our souls, as constant beggars asking for everything. Bear witness, children of God, you have never been able to get anything for your souls elsewhere. All the bread your soul has eaten has come down from heaven, and all the water of which it has drank has flowed from the living rock—Christ Jesus the Lord. Your soul has never grown rich in itself; it has always been a pensioner upon the daily bounty of God; and hence your prayers have ascended to heaven for a range of spiritual mercies all but infinite. Your wants were innumerable, and therefore the supplies have been infinitely great, and your prayers have been as varied as the mercies have been countless. Then have you not cause to say, "I love the Lord, because He hath heard the voice of my supplication"? For as your prayers have been many, so also have been God's answers to them. He has heard you in the day of trouble, has strengthened you, and helped you, even when you dishonoured Him by trembling and doubting at the mercy-seat. Remember this, and let it fill your heart with gratitude to God, who has thus graciously heard your poor weak prayers. "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His benefits."
 
Upvote 0