| Author | Message | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 113 Registered: 7-2005  |
Perhaps you have heard about universalism, the theory that everybody will be saved. Perhaps no much attention has been paid to it. But I discovered the arguments used by Charles Finney, a strong believer in free will, who negates the doctrine of original sin, and who was a full Pelagian. Reading his recollection of the answer given in a debate with a universalist preacher, I saw clearly that the calvinistic position about limited atonement, is the only valid option for christian believer. If someone believes that Christ died for all men, he has only two valid options: universalism, or, like Finney, coming to the conclusion ìthat the atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinnersî. WOW! How can someone be confortable with this thought? But Finneysí position is essentially the seventh day adventist position, and I feel that posting Charles Finney position will be a great help for those who canít discern the real nature of adventist belief about the sacrifice of Christ. . I used this link http://bible.christiansunite.com/Charles_Finney/finney04.shtml and posted what I think is essential, giving also the context "In this state of things, Mr. Gale, together with some of the elders of his church, desired me to address the people on the subject, and see if I could not reply to the arguments of the Universalist. The great effort of the Universalist was of course to show that sin did not deserve endless punishment. He inveighed against the doctrine of endless punishment as unjust, infinitely cruel and absurd. God was love; and how could a God of love punish men endlessly? I arose in one of our evening meetings and said, "This Universalist preacher holds forth doctrines that are new to me, and I do not believe they are taught in the Bible. But I am going to examine the subject, and if I cannot show that his views are false, I will become a Universalist myself." I then appointed a meeting the next week, at which time I proposed to deliver a lecture in opposition to his views. The Christian people were rather startled at my boldness in saying that I would be a Universalist, if I could not prove that his doctrines were false. However, I felt sure that I could. When the evening came for my lecture, the house was crowded. I took up the question of the justice of endless punishment, and discussed it through that and the next evening. There was general satisfaction with the presentation. The Universalist himself found that the people were convinced that he was wrong, and then he took another tack. Mr. Gale, together with his school of theology, maintained that the atonement of Christ was the literal payment of the debt of the elect, a suffering of just what they deserved to suffer; so that the elect were saved upon principles of exact justice; Christ, so far as they were concerned, having fully answered the demands of the law. The Universalist seized upon this view, assuming that this was the real nature of the atonement. He had only to prove that the atonement was made for all men, and then he could show that all men would be saved; because the debt of all mankind had been literally paid by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Universalism would follow on the very ground of justice; for God could not justly punish those whose debt was paid. I saw, and the people saw, those of them who understood Mr. Gale's position, that the Universalist had got him into a tight place. For it was easy to prove that the atonement was made for all mankind; and if the nature and value of the atonement were as Mr. Gale held, universal salvation was an inevitable result. This again carried the people away; and Mr. Gale sent for me and requested that I should go on and reply to him further. He said he understood that the question on the ground of law was settled; but now I must answer his argument upon the ground of the Gospel. I said to him, "Mr. Gale, I cannot do it without contradicting your views on that subject, and setting them all aside. With your views of the atonement he cannot be answered. For if you have the right view of the atonement, the people can easily see that the Bible proves that Christ died for all men, for the whole world of sinners; and therefore unless you will allow me to sweep your views of the atonement all away, I can say nothing to any purpose." "Well," said Mr. Gale, "it will never do to let the thing remain as it is. You may say what you please; only go on and answer him in your own way. If I find it necessary to preach on the subject of the atonement, I shall be obliged to contradict you." "Very well," said I, "let me but show my views, and I can answer the Universalist; and you may say to the people afterward what you please." I then appointed to lecture on the Universalist's argument founded on the Gospel. I delivered two lectures upon the atonement. In these I think I fully succeeded in showing that the atonement did not consist in the literal payment of the debt of sinners, in the sense which the Universalist maintained; that it simply rendered the salvation of all men possible, and did not of itself lay God under obligation to save anybody; that it was not true that Christ suffered just what those for whom He died deserved to suffer; that no such thing as that was taught in the Bible, and no such thing was true; that, on the contrary, Christ died simply to remove an insurmountable obstacle out of the way of God's forgiving sinners, so as to render it possible for Him to proclaim a universal amnesty, inviting all men to repent, to believe in Christ, and to accept salvation; that instead of having satisfied retributive justice, and borne just what sinners deserve, Christ had only satisfied public justice, by honoring the law, both in His obedience and death, thus rendering it safe for God to pardon sin, to pardon the sins of any man and of all men who would repent and believe in Him. I maintained that Christ, in His atonement, merely did that which was necessary as a condition of the forgiveness of sin; and not that which canceled sin, in the sense of literally paying the indebtedness of sinners. This answered the Universalist, and put a stop to any further proceedings or excitement on that subject." How do you feel after reading this? I was speechless! | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1371 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jackob, Wow, thanks for posting that. I love the way you are discovering the great truths of the Reformed faith. And you are doing this while you still officially belong to the SDA church. Ellen White was a contemporary of Charles Finney, and a disciple of John Wesley, and plagiarized a lot of these writings. Charles Finney did not teach Christian theology. He effectively denied the substitutionary atonement, as well as other doctrines of importance. It was Charles Finney that started the unbiblical practice of the altar call which is a staple of American evangelism. He carefully documents in one of his books, how, that if he set the mood properly, with the right music (Just as I Am etc.), and just was able to give the right message that would appeal to the individual free-will, then he could convert anyone to "Christianity". This is classic Pelagianism in its most heretical sense. Yet, this guy is hailed as America's model for evangelism! He even at times denied the fact that the Holy Spirit had anything to with initiating salvation. He was basically a hypnotist. Even Ellen White didn't quite go to some of the extremes that Charles Finney did, but the perfectionism he preached certainly invaded Ellen's writings. To this day the influence of Charles Finney and John Wesley with their free-will gospels has a grip on most of modern Christianity. Martin Luther and John Calvin took the exact opposite positions, that man's free will took no part in salvation, and that regeneration was solely a work of God. I don't know how to answer the above arguments and still support a universal atonement. If His blood was really a ransom for many as Jesus said in Matthew and Mark, then how could it be a ransom for all people. Logically, it would follow that if the penalty was paid for everyone in the world, then everyone would be saved. Otherwise, it would be double jeopardy--Those who are lost cannot pay a penalty that has already been paid. These issues have been debated through the centuries, and will continue to be debated. Stan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3475 Registered: 12-2003  |
I don't see this issue like either of Mr. Gale or Chalres Finney saw it in the article above, Jackob. I believe there is something here besides limiting either the power of Jesus' blood or the application of itóor resorting to universalism. There's another way to look at this, I believe, that neither negates the eternal omnipotent effect of Jesus' sacrifice nor ushers in universalism or human responsibility for salvation. I don't have time to unpack all my thoughts with texts, etc., now, but I'll come back to it... God is sovereignóeven over my free will; and He is sovereign over all sin and sinners and saints. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 68 Registered: 1-2004  |
From what I've been learning at seekers class at my local Orthodox church, and from reading your post, Jackob, what comes to mind is that Reformed theology is probably the most sensible theology to have if one is not going to be Eastern Orthodox. But since I'm learning so much about Orthodoxy, I'm able to begin to clearly see how Reformed theology has strong roots in the western Catholic theology. It seems a matter of a juridical view of the Atonement, or not. And, whether salvation is a journey and healing process, or a one time legal event. Orthodoxy is looking more and more to me like a completely different religion than the rest of today's Christianity. Jeremiah | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 637 Registered: 7-2004 |
In one day's time, both Proclamation! and the NPUC Gleaner arrived in my mailbox. One filled with doom and gloom the other with life, joy and freedom. God has a great sense of timing (and humor). I thought some of you may be interested in a few of the articles in the Gleaner. The Editorial is once again written by NPUC president, Jere Patzer. He talks of the tragic mistake made at The Council of Trent and allowing the Scriptures to hold the position of the final authority of doctrine. The other interesting ariticle is the feature, "Evangelicals and Catholics - United at What Price" by Gregory W. Hamilton. You can read these mentioned articles at www.gleaneronline.org . | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 609 Registered: 4-2000  |
Jackob, I am delighted to see your Christian growth in spite of your still being an Adventist--at least officially. My wife shared with me this morning the following excerpt from Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians: "Either Christ must live and the Law perish, or the Law remains and Christ must perish; Christ and the Law cannot dwell side by side in the conscience. It is either grace or law. To muddle the two is to eliminate the Gospel of Christ entirely. It seems a small matter to mingle the Law and Gospel, faith and works, but it creates more mischief than man's brain can conceive. To mix Law and Gospel not only clouds the knowledge of grace, it cuts out Christ altogether." Indeed, we owe so much to the great reformers of the Protestant Reformation. Keep up your able research to better understand biblical Christianity. Most of the things we learn in life we learn from others. More importantly, in regard to our personal salvation, the Holy Spirit is anxious to lead us into all truth. After all, we serve a prayer-answering God. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1372 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremiah, I would agree with you that eastern orthodoxy as well as RCC are different religions from Reformed Christianity. The Reformed faith is the least popular faith, because it gives God all the glory for salvation and it gives man no glory at all. How popular is that message in today's American culture of self-reliance? Here is a quote from John MacArthur's book "Ashamed of the Gospel" P. 154 "No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is ABSOLUTELY sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God's work. If God chose who would be saved, and if His choice was settled before the foundation of the world, then believers deserve no credit for any aspect of salvation." MacArthur also says that even those who profess to believe in God's sovereignty are today playing it down from the pulpits, as if they are "ashamed of this gospel of God's sovereign grace." Now to page 170 of the same book; "The doctrine of God's sovereignty is often abused, misunderstood, and misapplied. Many Christians decide it is too deep, too confusing, too hard to understand, or too offensive. But we should not run from it; we should RUN TO IT. We should not be afraid of it; we should rejoice in it. This doctrine crushes human pride, exalts God, and strengthens the believer's faith. What could be more encouraging than to know that God is sovereignly in control of all His creation? MacArthur also states that the most popular mega-churches in America are not likely to be built on the Reformed faith. Why is this? Again John says "The very reason many contemporary churches embrace pragmatic methodology is that they lack any understanding of God's sovereignty in the salvation of the elect. They lose confidence in the power of God to use the preached gospel to reach hardened unbelievers. That's why they approach evangelism as a marketing problem." This book did not win many friends for John MacArthur, but it is a prophetic message that needs to be heard. Jackob, I must say, after reading your post again, it looks like you had one of those AHA! moments that many have talked about on this board. I love your enthusiasm! Stan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 193 Registered: 11-2005 |
Dd -- It is on a very depressing note that a lay down to go to sleep for the night. I don't think I have read anything as depressing as the NPUC Gleaner in a long time. Surely the prophecies of Ellen White are finally coming to pass, and within weeks Roman Catholics will be hunting us all down. The Time of Trouble is at our door. I am going to bed. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Mrcato Registered user Username: Mrcato Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hey! Could someone elaborate on the unbiblical-ness of the altar call? This is my first time hearing/reading about that! I would really appreciate some more insight, thanks! | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 27 Registered: 2-2006 |
I had to smile, after reading Dennis' post and Luther's way of putting things: "...but it [man's brain trying to combine law and Gospel] creates more mischief than man's brain can conceive...." Oh yes! 'Mischief' abounds all right and is taught! It always has done. And it's hard to wrap one's mind around why people like the mischief of combination, once one learns the truth, freedom and JOY of the real Gospel. I have figured, it is plain old pride; we like ourselves and what we can do. But, thank God, grace abounds even more so. Cathy | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 28 Registered: 2-2006 |
Gilbert, I enjoyed your fecetiousness in your post. Have a great sleep. I am afraid I have the same ironic sense of humor (If we don't have humor, we would go mad). Strange how my Catholic sister only sends me beautiful prayer and Christ-centered love and theology. But my conservative SDA father is certain her Catholic leaders will place him in a concentration camp, someday. He always told us about the torture implements, he was sure were under the Catholic cathedral in Washington D.C., throughout my childhood. It is sad and tragic, but my sister and I do have to turn away not to show our smiles, sometimes, to be polite. (or leave the room) It is so ludicrous. God deliever them and continue to teach us in all his grace. Cathy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1374 Registered: 3-2005 |
Mrcato, Were you brought up in Adventism or some other branch of fundamentalism? Do you remember how manipulative the altar call was? I do remember the tedious guilt promoting altar calls at our Academy. They would keep playing the same music and giving the same lines until everyone came forward. Some would go forward just so the meetings would end. Altar calls were unheard of until Charles Finney introduced this manipulative tactic. One of the greatest preachers of all time, Charles Spurgeon, who was a contemporary of Finney and EGW never used this tactic. Sinners will come to Christ as the Word of God is taught faithfully. Here is an interesting link on why altar calls are unbiblical. www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/ALTAR.HTM Stan | ||
| Mrcato Registered user Username: Mrcato Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2003 |
Hi Stan, I was raised baptist actually. I guess I can remember a few rare instances when it seemed as if the pastor was being manipulative during the altar call. It has always been a part of my worship experiences, and I have never been aware it being unbiblical. Just one of those things I never thought of. This really has me enlightened! | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 30 Registered: 2-2006 |
Stan, "Some would go forward just so the meetings would end." Oh how that rings true in memory! "Sinners will come to Christ as the Word of God is taught faithfully." Oh how that rings of Truth! The Holy Spirit of Christ draws us to himself. I know it was for Mrcato, but thanks for that link. I really want to read it. I've read others in the past and they convinced me of the wrongess of the alter call and Finney, when, even after leaving Adventism, I still thought they were ok in other churches. I'd rather be wooed than pressured. Cathy | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 69 Registered: 1-2004 |
On the outside, the Eastern Orthodox church looks very similar to the RCC. But now that I've had a good look "under the hood" so to speak, I can tell you that these two churches are worlds apart! Reformed theology is in my opinion an attempt to make sense of the Bible with a historical foundation of RCC theology. And it does quite well at that. But for me the fact that Reformed theology cannot be found in the history of Christianity before the Reformation makes it difficult to give it any credibility. Part of the deal about Christianity for me is to have something that has a real connection with those early Christians whose writings cleared up so much of the SDA doctrines I used to believe. I have this desire to be able to tell a person why I believe what I am going to believe. And I couldn't back up SDAism with history. I can't back up Reformed theology with history. But it appears to me that I absolutely CAN back up Eastern Orthodoxy with history. I can read the writings of the early Christians in context, and come away with the current Orthodox teachings. In other words, to my mind it appears that I can believe beyond reasonable doubt that we still have the church of the Apostles here with us today, unchanged and quite alive, and this is the Orthodox church. The RCC looks like it on the outside because of the common traditions from 1000 years ago, but has left the path in too many ways. I can't defend things like papal infallability from the early Christian writings. I guess I've just studied too much history. There is just no way I can believe that modern American Christianity even remotely resembles the early church. From my experience so far, I would highly recommend that people check out the seekers class at their local Orthodox church. Go there and ask the hard questions. Attend a vespers service or Divine Liturgy. Do not rule out this ancient church without experiencing a little of it first. If this church is a "cult" then the Christian church in 400 A.D. was a cult too, because that's when the liturgy in use today was written! It literally has not changed since then! Pardon my excitement...  Jeremiah | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 116 Registered: 7-2005 |
Iím happy to read the reactions on my post, even of those who disagree with me. Like Stan said, I had an AHA moment, and wanted to share with everybody on this forum. Also, like Stan, I donít think that believing in all the five points of Calvinism is essentially to salvation. Actually I have a friend here in Romania who agrees only with the bondage of the will, total depravity, and make jokes about me because I believe in predestination. He discovered the gospel, but thinks that believing in predestination is limiting the work of Christ. He, officially a former adventist, attacked the free will in Sabbath School class at his church, but, because he didnít believe in predestination, he has a difficult time to explain to others why someone rejects the gospel and someone accepts it. If man always, because of his nature, rejects God, and God chooses everybody to salvation, if humans can say onlyÑNOî to God, and God say only ÑYESî to all people, why some people are saved, and someone are not saved? Is a third person involved? Because he has meet this objections, he slowly begun to be open to the idea of predestination, even if it is not a pleasure for him. I understand him very well because I have been reluctant to acknowledge, guess what, limited atonementÖ But I was also forced, against my will, to restudy the subject. I debated with my adventist scholar about the atonement of Christ, maked on the cross. The dialogues with him were very helpful because they revealed the cracks in my armor. It pays to relate here one of them. I used Hebrews 10:14, to advance the idea of the finished atonement on the cross. ÑFor by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctifiedî If atonement is finished at the cross, and by his sacrifice Christ perfected FOR EVER the saints, this means that the saints donít need a second work of atonement (after 1844), for their sins to be cleansed. They are for ever perfect, without spot. But my scholar friend was ready for me, because he knowed that I believed in universal atonement. He said: ìIf those for whom Christ died are FOR EVER perfect, they are saved FOR EVER. Because Christ died for everyone, everyone will be for ever saved.î I have not been conscious at that moment that I used against him the idea of double jeopardy, but this is the argument against the second work of atonement. If someone have made atonement for me, there is no need for another atonement. I suppose many of the former adventists have also used unconsciously this idea in rejecting investigative judgment, and believing the gospel. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, many came to believe that Christ fully paid our debt, and we are no more debtors to the law. We cannot be put on trial because this will means a negation of the fact that Christ satisfied entirely the requirements of justice for us. Correct me if Iím wrong, but, what I perceive is that, on the base of double jeopardy, we rejected the investigative judgment and the second atonement. Itís just a step further in the same direction to believe that if Christ fully paid the debt of the entire human race, nobody is a debtor to the law, and nobody can be condemned and punished. The double jeopardy is a double edge sword, it can save or can destroy us. I heartily recommend this article of John Reisinger, about his journey of accepting limited atonement http://soundofgrace.com/jgr/index017.htm. He also made clear the danger of making this point a test of faith. I will use his conclusion ÑHaving said all of the above, I must add that I totally reject the idea that it is essential to believe in Limited Atonement in order to be a true child of God. I believe such a view is far more dangerous to the gospel of grace than the Arminians." | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 31 Registered: 2-2006 |
Jeremiah's post made me curious because I do not know anythng about the Eastern Orthodox Churches. I looked up some things in Google and found 2 links (same site) I thought I'd share. The first one enriched what I already believe about the Old/New covenants and Christ's sacrifce. It looks like there are some doctrinal points of unity between East and (some) West. (I have not read all of the articles): http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Blood%20Sacrifices%20and%20Forgiveness The second link, written by a convert from the Nazerene church to Eastern Orthodoxy helped me to understand the differences between the West and the Eastern viewpoints, plus some history of it all: http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Faith%20and%20Works%20in%20Orthodoxy In Christ, Cathy | ||
| Javagirl Registered user Username: Javagirl Post Number: 168 Registered: 6-2005 |
Sorta on line with the alter call....One of my favorite readings ever. It so totally described my experience in the past... Rededication: A Subtle Form of Idolatry by Steve McVey _________________ For years I rededicated myself to live for Jesus Christ. By rededication, I mean that I promised God that if He would help me, I would try harder to live for Him. In my understanding at the time, living for Him meant that I would behave in a better way. I would read the Bible more consistently, pray more earnestly, witness more boldly, give more generously, avoid sin more vehemently, ad infinitum. My understanding of what it meant to rededicate myself to Christ wasnít uncommon. Many people view it the same way. When I was a local church pastor, I often used by sermons to challenge the congregation to rededicate themselves to Jesus. This week it would be a challenge to read the Bible more; next week it might be to pray more. Every week, my challenge to Christians revolved around behaving better. It was all about trying harder. And the people responded ó in great numbers. The reason for their response is because when we align ourselves with a legalistic paradigm that we use to judge our behavior, not one of us will get a perfect score. None of us are behaving at all times in all areas of life without room for progress. Judge yourself by law and youíll come up short every time. The result will always be a sense of condemnation and guilt. Jesus never once calls on us to rededicate ourselves. Instead he says that we should renounce our self efforts to do better and simply follow (enter into union) with Him. (See Matthew 16:24 ñ it says ìdenyî yourself, not ìdedicate yourself.) Rededication generally focuses on bringing our behavior up to par. Consequently, the focus of our lives becomes ourselves and how we behave. Most Christians are consumed with that endeavor. They constantly stare at themselves and their performance. They invest all their attention and energy on improving their actions. They may say they love Jesus, but based on the little attention they give to Him and the enormous attention and energy they spend on themselves and what they are doing or not doing, the truth becomes evident. They come first, not Christ. The evidence indicates that they are a god in their own mind. Whatever we put before God is an idol. Consequently, when a Christian places his focus on himself and how he is acting more than He focuses on God Himself, he is guilty of idolatry. Remember that idolatry is placing anything before God. So to make our own demand for a higher religious performance the priority of life is a subtle form of idolatry. Christianity isnít about you and how well you behave. Itís about having an intimate love relationship with God through Christ. Where is your focus? Is it on you? On what youíre doing or not doing? Or is your attention and devotion squarely focused on Jesus Christ? There is a real need for repentance in the modern church. It is the need to turn away from ourselves and our never-ending, never-satisfied demand for perfect behavior. It is the need for a turning-to Jesus Christ. We must stop worshiping the false god of our own behavioral expectations. Stop worshiping our own self-efforts to improve. We must stop permitting our Christian experience to be about my efforts, my sins, my good works, my promises to do better. Itís not about me, me, me. Christianity is all Him, Him, Him! May God grant the gift of repentance to His church so that we will quit worshiping ourselves at the Temple of Rededication. May we turn to Him and acknowledge that we never will be able to live up to our own self-righteous demands, so we are casting ourselves on His grace and love. Then, and only then, will we find that Christ and Christ alone is our Deliverer. He will free us from being held hostage in a prison of self-perfectionism. When we turn away from rededication and turn to Him, we will hear Him lovingly whisper, ìI never intended for you to change yourself. I just want you to rest here in my arms. Iíll bring about the changes in your life. You just stay here and enjoy me.î Steve McVey is the President of Grace Walk Ministries, a discipleship ministry located in Atlanta, GA. If you have been sent this devotional by a friend and want to know more about Grace Walk Ministries, visit our web site at www.gracewalk.org. This devotional may be duplicated if printed with no changes in its entirety and with the following acknowledgment: ìCopyright, 2003,used by permission. Steve McVey, Grace Walk Ministries, www.gracewalk.org î Amen Amen Amen!!! It Is Finished. Lori | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 33 Registered: 2-2006 |
Ahhhh...what a wonderful essay, Lori!!! The Accuser wants us to obsess on our sins, focus on making ME better! Become like gods...but never focus on Christ, at all costs, never, ever Christ. Thank you for this and the link. Cathy | ||
| Mrcato Registered user Username: Mrcato Post Number: 18 Registered: 12-2003 |
So, if, after a sermon, the pastor asks (once or twice at the most) if there is anyone who desires to give his or her life to Christ, is that considered an altar call? Also, when the pastor asks after the sermon those who need prayer about issues raised in the sermon to come to the altar, is that also considered an altar call? If so, what would then be the 'proper or correct' way to approach these two situations? I've just never heard the validity of the altar call addressed before so please bear with me on these questions. Also, in my church, the pastor does not make an endless plea at the end of his sermon, he only asks once and he asks in a normal speaking voice, no fire or brimstone or any other extra dramatics. |
