Archive for August, 2016

The Wednesday Word: Is Jesus Enough as your Life? (Part 1)

“Take away Jesus, and a believer is nobody—without Him, we are nobodies who can do nothing.”

So said the mighty Puritan preacher, Thomas Brooks

Tucked away in Paul’s letter to the Philippians we find one of the most profound statements in scripture; it reads, “For me to live is Christ” (Philippians 1:21). This scripture brings us to sacred ground. I’m challenged when I read it! Are you? Is it true, for us, that to live is Christ? Can we say, with reality and certainty, that Christ Jesus is our life?

Paul could say it, and what was true about Paul should also be true of every other follower of Jesus. There is, after all, no elite class of special followers comprised of the super–spiritual, the apostles, the preachers and the like. There are no super-saints! We are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28). That Christ is to be our life, therefore, is the standard for every one of His followers.

Every follower of the Lord Jesus should be able to say with Paul, “For me to live is Christ.” As we bathe daily in the gospel, our lives become consumed with a passion for Jesus. Paul, as you remember, when he penned these words was awaiting an uncertain future. He was in prison and didn’t know whether he was to live or die. But, to him, it was of no consequence for if He lived, life would all be about Christ and if he died it would still be the same.

Let’s take a moment to think about it. Can we say, Christ is our life? Of course, we can say it, but are we honest? Is our life, perhaps, all about our family? Maybe, if the truth surfaced, we’d see that our lives are about us, our career, our ambitions and dreams?

Families are wonderful but precious as our families are, what happens if death suddenly takes one or all of them away? Or, what happens when our career is suddenly ended or our investments are abruptly evaporated. If any of these things are our life, then we will have no life. Our life will have vanished.

“Well,” you say, “my life is none of the above, my life is about what I do for Jesus.” To work for Jesus is good, but it is a poor substitute for Christ Himself. What if we lose our health and are confined to a hospital bed? We can no longer teach or serve or minister in the manner to which we are accustomed. Our life has disappeared, and we are left with nothing.

Paul’s life, however, was about a person, Jesus Christ, not about the work he could do for Him. He was madly and passionately in love with Jesus. Jesus was his treasure. Out of this relationship flowed his work and priorities but these things were never his life. Paul built all of his life upon a person. In that way, he was secure and satisfied. Jesus was always enough in every situation.

So let’s ask the question again, is Jesus your life? You say you are not sure how to answer that! OK, ask yourself, what do you do with your thought life, do you ever think about Jesus? Listen to me, you will always think about the one you love! Jesus taught that our heart will always be with our treasure (Matthew 6:21).

So, let’s ask again, is Jesus your life? Does He ever occupy your mind?

Do you ever talk about Him? It’s hard to keep quiet about someone you love. That’s why Paul was such a diligent preacher. He desired to make Jesus famous! Do you? Do I? Remember that a spiritually diseased heart births a tongue that longs to be quiet about Jesus.

And that’s the Gospel Truth!

Miles Mckee

Categories: Gospel Tags: , , ,

Attributes of God: Conclusion- Book 2

Book Second


The doctrine concerning God harmonizes with the affections of the pious heart, and tends to cherish them. The moral nature of those who do not love God, demonstrates his existence and their obligation to love him and consequently, their nature is at war with itself. There is a conflict within, between conscience and the depraved affections. The moral principle is in the unrenewed heart, overrun with unholy passions; and it cannot be duly developed, until the affections are sanctified. When, by this change, harmony has been produced in the inner man, all that is within will harmonize with the doctrine concerning God. The mind, in its proper and healthy action, joyfully receives the doctrine, and finds in God the object of its highest love. The pious man rejoices that God exists, and that his attributes are what nature and revelation proclaim them to be. “Whom have I in heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.”[1]

The doctrine concerning God not only harmonizes with inward piety, but tends to cherish it. If love to God exists when he is but partially known, it will increase as our knowledge of him increases. As the pious man studies the character of God, the beauty and glory of that character open to his view, and his heart is drawn out towards it with more intense affection. With such soul-ravishing views the Psalmist had been favored, when he exclaimed, ” O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is; to see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.”[2]

The love of God, which is increased by a true knowledge of him, is not a mere feeling of gratitude for blessings received. Many persons talk of God’s goodness, and profess to love him, who have no pleasure in contemplating his holiness and justice, and to whom these are unwelcome attributes. When such persons stand before him in the last judgment, there is reason to fear that they will find him to be a different God from that which they loved and praised on earth. Love to the true God is love to the God of holiness and justice, the God in whom every moral perfection is united; and if our love is of this kind, we shall delight to survey the glories of the divine character, and, apart from all views of the benefits received from him, shall be enamored of his essential loveliness.

The love to God which increases by a true knowledge of him, is pervaded with a deep-felt reverence for his character. The familiar levity with which he is sometimes approached and addressed, by no means comports with the awful exhibitions of himself which he has made in his works and in his word. They who, while they profess to love him, have no solemn sense of his infinite grandeur and holiness, have yet to learn the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. The true knowledge of God will rectify this evil in the heart.

The true love of God is accompanied with humility. When we are absorbed in the contemplation of the human mind, we may well be filled with admiration of its powers and capacities. But lately, it rose into being, from the darkness of nonentity, a spark so feebly glimmering, that an omniscient eye only could perceive its light. In the short period which has intervened, it has gradually increased in splendor, and has probably astonished the world by its brilliance. What was once the feeblest ray of intellect, has become a Newton, a Locke, a Howard, or a Napoleon. And when we conceive of this immortal mind, as continuing to expand its powers throughout a boundless future, we are ready to form a high estimate of human greatness. But when we remember that man, whatever he is, and whatever he is capable of, is a creature formed by the hand of God, and endowed by him with all these noble faculties; when we consider that, with all his advancement through eternal ages, he will forever be as nothing, compared with the infinitude of God; and when we look back into past eternity, and contemplate God as existing with all this boundlessness of perfection, ages of ages before our feeble existence commenced; we may well turn away from all admiration of human greatness, and exclaim, “Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him?”

But the strongest incentive to humility is found in contrasting our depravity with God’s holiness. Noble as the human intellect is, it is ruined by its apostasy from God. Every depraved son of Adam, who has studied the attributes of God, and has attained to some knowledge of his immaculate holiness, may well exclaim in deep humility, “Woe is me! A man of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”[3]

The true knowledge of God gives confidence in him. In view of his truth, we learn to put unwavering trust in the manifestations of himself which he has made, and the promises which he has given, for the foundation of our hope. There are times when the good man loses his sensible enjoyment of the divine favor, and when the sword of justice appears pointed at his breast; but even then, with the true knowledge and love of God in his heart, he can say, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.”

The doctrine concerning God which the Bible teaches, confirms its claim to be regarded as the word of God.

This doctrine, as we have seen, is precisely adapted to man’s moral nature, and calls forth the moral and religious principles with which his Creator has endowed him, into their best and noblest exercise. If viewed apart from his relation to God, man, the creature so wonderfully endowed, is an enigma in the universe; but the doctrine concerning God solves the mystery. The tendency of this doctrine to exert a sanctifying influence, at the very origin of all human feeling and action, demonstrates that it comes from God. He who experiences its sanctifying power on his heart, has a proof of its truth that noting else can give. For this doctrine, we are chiefly indebted to the Bible. Here God, who has dimly exhibited himself in his works, comes forth in a direct communication, and like the sun in the heavens, makes himself visible by his own light. If the religious principle within us acted as it ought, the doctrine of the Bible would be as precisely adapted to us as the light of the sun is to the eye; and we should have as thorough conviction that the God of the Bible exists, as we have that the sun exists, when we see him shining forth with all his splendor in the mid-heavens.

The proof that the Bible is the word of God, will accumulate as we make progress in our investigation of religious truth. We have advanced one step, by our inquiries into the existence and attributes of God; and the glory of the Bible-doctrine concerning God, has shone on our path with dazzling brightness. Let us continue to prosecute our studies, guided by this holy book; and if we open our hearts to the sanctifying power of its truth, we shall have increasing proof, in its influence on our souls, that it comes from the God of holiness.

[1] Ps. lxxiii. 25.

[2] Ps. lxiii. 1, 2.

[3] Isaiah vi. 5.

John L. Dagg- Manual of Theology

The Case for Credobaptism

by Sam Renihan

The practice of baptizing professing believers is grounded upon two complementary foundations. The first is an argument from the covenants of Scripture. The second is an argument from the commands of Scripture related to those covenants. Credobaptists and paedobaptists often assume, or argue, that the people of a given covenant receive the covenant sign. Thus, in the case of the subjects of baptism one must simply identify the covenant people. This is insufficient. The administration of covenantal ordinances is governed by specific laws, which must be obeyed strictly. For example, women were members of Abraham’s covenant but they were not recipients of its sign, circumcision. Likewise, infant males were circumcised, but only on the eighth day. As a result, to determine the subjects of baptism one must first identify and distinguish the covenants involved and then examine the accompanying laws.

1. A positive credobaptist argument asserts that the relevant covenant involved is the new covenant, and that this covenant is distinct from the biblical covenants that preceded it in history, particularly the Abrahamic covenant. Simply put, the Abrahamic covenant promised earthly blessings to an earthly people (Abraham and his offspring) in an earthly land. This covenantal relationship was expanded and developed in the Mosaic covenant….




Read the entire article here.

Another pertinent example on interpreting general statements

Arthur PinkAnother pertinent example is found in our Lord’s “Swear not at all” (Matthew 5:34). In the section of the sermon on the mount in which those words occur, Christ was freeing the Divine commandments from the errors of the rabbis and Pharisees, enforcing their strictness and spirituality. In the instance now before us, the Jewish doctors had restricted the Mosaic statutes upon oaths to the simple prohibition against perjury, encouraging the habit of swearing by the creature and the taking of oaths lightly in ordinary conversation. In verses 34-37 our Lord inveighed against those corrupt traditions and practices. That He never intended His “swear not at all” to be taken absolutely is clear from His bidding men to swear by no creature, and from His reprehending all oaths in ordinary conversation. The general analogy of Scripture reveals the need for oaths on certain occasions. Abraham swore to Abimelech (Genesis 21:23, 24) and required his servant to take an oath (Genesis 24:8, 9); Jacob (Genesis 31:53) and Joseph (Genesis 47:31) each took one. Paul repeatedly confirmed his teaching by solemnly calling God for a witness (Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:23, etc.). Hebrews 6:16, indicates that oaths are both permissible and requisite.

Arthur W. Pink-Interpretation of the Scriptures

John Gano (1727-1804)

He was of Huguenot extraction, his great-grandfather, Francis Gevneaux, having escaped from the Island of Guernsey during the persecution of the Protestants and settled at New Rochelle, New York His education was irregular and limited. He was ordained, 29 May, 1754, as pastor of the Scotch Plains, New Jersey, Baptist Church, and shortly afterward traveled and preached extensively in the southern colonies, and was settled as pastor for two years in North Carolina. In 1760 he returned to New Jersey, and also preached for a while in Philadelphia and New York. When, in 1762, the 1st Baptist Church in New York was organized, he became its pastor and continued successfully in this relation for twenty-six years. Mr. Gano was an ardent patriot, and in the war of the Revolution served for some time as chaplain to General Clinton’s New York brigade. In the conflict on Chatterton Hill he was continually under fire, displaying a cool and quiet courage, which commanded the admiration of officers and men. Returning to New York at the close of the war he found his Church scattered and greatly reduced, but prosperity soon returned. In May, 1788, he removed to Kentucky, and became pastor of the Town Pork Church, near Lexington, where he remained till his death. He was twice married; his first wife was the sister of the wife of Dr. Manning, first president of Brown University. It has been said of him that, “as a minister of Christ, he shone like a star of the first magnitude in the American Churches.”–His son, Stephen, clergyman, born in New York City, 25 December 1762; died in Providence, Rhode Island, 18 August, 1828, was prevented by the Revolutionary war from receiving a collegiate education, and pursued a short course of study with reference to the medical profession. He was appointed a surgeon in the army at the age of nineteen, and for two years was in the public service. While practicing as a physician at Tappan, now Orangetown, New York, he was converted, and, at once feeling it his duty to give himself to the Christian ministry, was ordained 2 August, 1786. After preaching for a time in the vicinity of New York he was called, in 1792, to the pastorate of the 1st Baptist Church in Providence, Rhode Island He accepted the call and spent the remainder of his days in ministering, with distinction and success, to this, the oldest Baptist Church in the United States. He was one of the overseers of Brown University from 1794 till his death.


Source [Reformed Reader]

The gospel preaching is this:- “Thou art a lost sinner, and thou canst deserve nothing of God but his displeasure; if thou art to be saved, it must be by an act of sovereign grace

CharlesSpurgeon3. When a speaker desires to strengthen his point and to make himself clear, he generally puts in a negative as to the other side. So the apostle adds a negative:- “Not according to our works.” The world’s great preaching is, “Do as well as you can, live a moral life, and God will save you.” The gospel preaching is this:- “Thou art a lost sinner, and thou canst deserve nothing of God but his displeasure; if thou art to be saved, it must be by an act of sovereign grace. God must freely extend the silver scepter of his love to thee, for thou art a guilty wretch who deserves to be sent to the lowest hell. Thy best works are so full of sin that they can in no degree save thee; to the free mercy of God thou must owe all things.” “Oh,” saith one, “are good works of no use?” God’s works are of use when a man is saved, they are the evidences of his being saved; but good works do not save a man, good works do not influence the mind of God to save a man, for if so, salvation would be a matter of debt and not of grace. The Lord has declared over and over in his Word, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” “By the works of the law there shall no flesh living be justified.” The apostle in the epistle to the Galatians is very strong indeed upon this point; indeed he thunders it out again, and again, and again. He denies that salvation is even so much as in part due to our works, for if it be by work then he declares it is not of grace, otherwise grace is no more grace; and if it be of grace it is not of works, otherwise work is no more work. Paul assures us that the two principles of grace and merit can no more mix together than fire and water; that if man is to be saved by the mercy of God, it must be by the mercy of God and not by works; but if man is to be saved by works, it must be by works entirely and not by mercy mixed therewith, for mercy and work will not go together. Jesus saves, but he does all the work or none. He is Author and Finisher, and works must not rob him of his due. Sinner, you must either receive salvation freely from the hand of Divine Bounty, or else you must earn it by your own unassisted merits, which last is utterly impossible. Oh that you would yield to the first! My brethren, this is the truth, which still needs to be preached. This is the truth, which shook all Europe from end to end when Luther first proclaimed it. Is not this the old thunderbolt which the great reformer hurled at Rome- “Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus”? But why did God make salvation to be by faith? Scripture tells us- “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” If it had been by works it must have been by debt; but since it is by faith, we can clearly see that there can be no merit, in faith. It must be therefore by grace.

Charles H. Spurgeon- Salvation Altogether by Grace (2 Timothy 1:9)- Delivered on Sunday Morning July 29th, 1866

Free Ebook- A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion

August 12, 2016 2 comments







Wherein is proved by Scripture, the example of the

Primitive times, and the practice of all that

Have professed the Christian Religion:

That no unbaptized person may

Be regularly admitted to the

Lord’s Supper.

By W. Kiffin a lover of Truth and Peace

Acts 2:41 – Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them

about three thousand souls.

Deuteronomy. 5:32 – Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn

aside to the right hand or to the left.

Colossians. 2:5 – For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order,

and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.

London, Printed by George Larkin, for Enoch Prosser,

And the Rose and Crown in Sweethings – Alley,

At the East End of the royal Exchange,



Download the book here. (Pdf)

Benjamin Keach- Biography

August 12, 2016 2 comments

The Glory of a True Church, And its Discipline Displayed (1697)

Benjamin Keach

Keach, Rev. Benjamin, was born in Stokeham, England, Feb. 29, 1640. He found peace through Christ in his fifteenth year; and being unable to discover infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling in the Bible, and being fully satisfied that every believer should be immersed, he was baptized after the Saviour’s example by John Russel, and united with a neighboring Baptist church. This community, perceiving his remarkable talents, encouraged him, when he was eighteen years old, to exercise his gifts as a minister.

At first he was an Arminian about the extent of the atonement and free-will, but the reading of the Scriptures and the conversation of those who knew the will of God more perfectly relieved him from both errors. In 1668, in the twenty-eighth year of his age, he was ordained pastor of the church of Horsleydown, Southwark, London. The congregation increased so rapidly after Mr. Keach became pastor, that they had repeatedly to enlarge their house of worship.

Mr. Keach soon became a famous disputant on the Baptist side; he had taken Richard Baxter in hand, to the serious injury of the bishop of Kidderminster, and others had felt his heavy blows.

The Rev. John Tredwell, of Lavingham, a friend of Mr. Keach, was blessed in h is ministry by the conversion of several vicious persons, who united with his ch urch; this stirred up the indignation of the Rev. Wm. Burkitt, the commentator, a neighbor of Mr. Tredwell, who cast many unjust reflections upon the Baptists a nd their doctrines. Mr. Tredwell wrote Mr. Burkitt giving some reasons why he sh ould abandon the unchristian course he was pursuing. Mr. Burkitt, at a time when Mr. Tredwell and his people were gathered in the sanctuary for public worship, with a number of his parishioners, entered the meeting-house, and demanded that Mr. Tredwell and his church should hear his view of the points in dispute. Mr. Tredwell, taken aback somewhat by “such a riotous and tumultuous challenge,’’ agreed to let him speak against Baptist beliefs and usages, provided that he should have an opportunity to reply. For nearly two hours Mr. Burkitt sustained infant baptism, and then he and his riotous company departed without giving Mr. Tredwell an opportunity of making any return, except to a few of his own persuasion that were left behind.” Mr. Burkitt speedily published the substance of the address so rudely intruded upon the Baptist minister and his people. Mr. Keach, as a valiant defender of the faith, was invited to reply to Mr. Burkitt’s arguments, which he did effectively in “The Rector Rectified and Corrected.” Mr. Burkitt was rector of Dedham.

He was challenged by some Episcopal ministers to discuss baptism at Gravesend, near London. As he went to that place in a boat with some friends, he incidentally alluded to the proposed meeting in a way that permitted a stranger, an Episcopal minister, to know that he was Mr. Keach. This person attacked him about infant baptism, and received such a complete drubbing that as soon as the boat touched land he started for his Episcopal brethren and informed them of the arguments which Mr. Keach would use and of his method of putting them. The result of the interview between Mr. Keach’s fellow-traveler in the Gravesend boat and his brethren was that they went away as quickly as possible, leaving Mr. Keach without an antagonist.

Mr. Keach was often in prison for preaching, and his life was frequently in danger. Some cavalry sent down to Buckinghamshire to suppress the religious meetings of Dissenters found Mr. Keach preaching, and swore that they would kill him. He was seized and bound and laid on the earth and four of the troopers were ready to trample him to death with their horses; but just as they were going to put spurs to their horses an officer who perceived their object rode up and stopped them. He was taken to prison, from which he obtained a release after suffering great hardships.

In 1664 he wrote “The Child’s Instructor.” For the heresies against the Episcopal Church in the little work he was arrested and bound over under he avy penalties to appear at court. The assizes began at Aylesbury Oct. 8, 1664. T he judge was Lord Chief Justice Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon, who acted like Jeffreys at the “Bloody Assizes.” He abused Mr. Keach outrageously, he threatened the jury, and he evidently wanted to have Mr. Keach executed if he c ould terrify him into making some unwise statements. The jury brought in a verdi ct that Mr. Keach was guilty in part. And when asked to explain their verdict th e foreman said, “In the indictment he is charged with these words, ‘When th e thousand years shall be expired, then shall all the rest of the devils be rais ed’; but in the book it is, ‘Then shall the rest of the dead be raised.’” T he judge informed the jury that they could bring him in guilty of all the indict ments but that sentence. They brought in the prompted verdict. And immediately t he judge said: “Benjamin Keach, you are here convicted for writing, printin g, and publishing a seditious and schismatical book, for which the court’s judgm ent is that you go to jail for a fortnight without bail, and the next Saturday stand upon the pillory at Aylesbury in the open market for the space of two hours, with a paper upon your head with this inscription, ‘For writing, printing, and publishing a schismatical book entitled “The Child’s Instructor, or a New and Easy Primer,”’ and the next Thursday to stand in the same manner and for the same time in the market of Winslow; and then your book shall be openly burnt before your face by the common hangman in disgrace of you and your doctrine. And you shall forfeit to the king’s majesty the sum of twenty pounds; and shall remain in jail until you find sureties for your good behavior and appearance at the next assizes, there to renounce your doctrines and make such public submission as shall be enjoined upon you.” The sheriff was as rigorous in executing this infamous sentence as the judge was insolent in pronouncing it.

On the pillory at Aylesbury Mr. Keach defended himself and the truth with great boldness. The jailer frequently interrupted him, and finally, the sheriff himself threatened to have him gagged. The people, contrary to custom, had no words of mockery for the good, persecuted minister, and no offensive missile was hurled at him. An Episcopal minister who ventured to assail Mr. Keach in the pillory was immediately reproached by the people with the ungodliness of his own life, and his voice was drowned in laughter. At Winslow, where he lived, he suffered the same shameful penalty, and a copy of his little book was burned.

Mr. Keach was a zealous Baptist; he aided ministers who came to him from all parts of his country, he had many meeting-houses built, and his works in defense of Baptist principles were read all over the kingdom. Before his death men spoke of him as the “famous” Mr. Keach, and he is still described by writers as a man of great celebrity. His two most popular works are “Tropologia, or a Key to open Scripture Metaphors,” and “Gospel Mysteries Unveiled, or an Exposition of all the Parables.” The latter work is more frequently offered for sale in the catalogues of the great London second-hand bookstores than any production of Richard Baxter,

John Howe, or Jeremy Taylor. Mr. Keach was the author of forty-three works. He died July 18, 1704, in his sixty-fourth year. He was a devout Christian who led a blameless life and died in the triumphs of faith.

—William Cathcart, 1881

Benjamin Keach- The Glory of a True Church, And its Discipline Displayed (1697)

The Trinity: Prosopologically Speaking (Response to Some Comments)

by Tom Nettles

(This post follows up on The Trinity: Reflections without Recrimination by Tom Nettles.)

Are there necessary and fitting connections between God’s opera ad intra and his opera ad extra? I believe there are. Do the Father and the Son and the Spirit operate precisely in the same spheres and in the same ways in the opera ad extra? No. Is this because, as they exist eternally and necessarily as three persons in one God, these eternal personal distinctions operate ad extra in a way consistent with their existence ad intra? I would say, “yes,” and would see this as an expression of the divine simplicity, not a Unitarian simplicity, but a Trinitarian simplicity.

How does this differ from Liam Goligher’s explanation in a June 14 post? He writes:

“Better to see the matter in the economy where undoubtedly Christ, in the covenant of redemption (meaning, in eternity of course), and in the decree encompassing creation, election and redemption undertook to take into Himself our humanity and take into Himself the form of a servant.”

Did the Son, already anticipating his role as Christ according to Goligher’s use of language….




Read the entire article here.

Charles Spurgeon’s Letters-Letter 77

June 5, 1878.


Your letters give us all great delight, and the readers of The Sword and Trowel enthusiastically praise the delicious dishes which your dear mother prepares from your capital material. Keep on excelling where your father fails.’

If only you were here a look at my Australian son would make a day’s delight. Everybody seems interested in your goings on. How rejoiced, I am quite unable to tell you. I would give all glory to God, but I may also praise you for the excellent manner in which you have conducted yourself on all occasions, out of the pulpit as well as in it. Go on, dear son, as you have done, and my heart will have to bless the Lord daily at every remembrance of you.

I shall be glad soon to see you home, but still I should like you to see New Zealand. Mr. Sands thinks you would be a suitable successor to Dr. Culross, who is leaving Highbury, but the time which must intervene will, I think, render that of no avail. We will leave such engagements till your course can be more clearly foreseen.

We want zealous, cultured, sound ministers, and when one of these can be met with several churches will be after him. May our Lord clothe you with so much power that you may be very valiant in Israel!

Dear son, your love is very sweet to me. God keep you ever and bring you back to me.

Your loving father

Who again blesses you in the name of the Lord,