He Who Endures To The End Will Be Saved

The subjectivity of being saved is the foundation of the “free grace” movement within the church, and it dates back to medieval times, as well as during the times of the Reformation; in fact, it has adherents in New Testament times, which is why the Apostle Paul addressed it (Romans 6, particularly vs. 1 and 15, with the rest of the chapter expounding on why such statements must be met with the strongest of negatives).

The Puritans had much to say on this subject, as well as prior, and modern, commentators, preachers, pastors, and theologians within the entirety of this present church age, but what does the Scripture speak of on this topic?

“He who endures to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; John 6:27; 1 Corinthians 13:7; 1 Peter 2:19).

These are but a very few of the relevant verses, but they are those which I have chosen to show the character of that which the Scriptures speak. Of course, context should and must be considered in the exegesis and application of these verses; however, how much have we chosen to limit the application and exegesis of Scripture in these, and many other, instances?

Now, consider, for we are so quick to judge: How many of those saints throughout the multifaceted history of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ have proven that to judge hastily on such a matter is not only unwarranted, but sin, on our part?

Go further: Have you read, or known of, any saint (or one you considered a saint), who has not ended the race well (think HARD before you answer this one, it is a loaded question)?

Think hard upon this question, for it is one of the most serious matter; have you known of, or read of (or both) a saint who has gone over to eternity whom you would not consider worthy of such, by their ending in this life?

At this point, an example is in order: I invite the reader to read this brief biography of Adoniram Judson, put together by John Piper possibly for (he may have done it as a private study, then shared it at the conference) the 2003 Bethlehem Conference For Pastors (or listen to it, as the link provides):

Few There Are Who Die So Hard

It should prove very educational to those inclined to judge mortality, immortality, and morality, based on the vagaries of this sordid, often tepid, life; based on subjective observation, rather then the objective Scriptures of our great God and Savior.

Note: I am NOT saying that one who is saved will never show such; quite the contrary! What I AM saying is that, though one (or two, or three) should show that which we would adjudge as pagan and worldly, yet has shown formerly they have gone beyond profession to belief (by view of verifiable fruits of grace, to our manner of viewing as the Scripture prescribes), we are to hope against hope, believe all things, know that God is sovereignly in control, and so, holding fast to the Scriptures, pray for such an one, for that one is the sheep we would deem as lost, but which the Lord, in His infinite and eternal knowledge, always had ordained would be His from before the foundations of  the world.

To simplify matters, I am saying that a saint can, and often will, stray for a time (and I use the term as the Scriptures of our Lord do, for our sake, for He is outside of time, though He has intersected it for our sakes and understanding – witness His unfathomable Word, which His Spirit yet makes plain to us for first, His glorious sake, and secondly, for our sakes), yet those who are His will indeed come back to their first love, repent, forgive (and be forgiven by saints they have wronged), and serve the Lord Jesus Christ as those members of His body which they have been placed as – there will be regrets (who could not regret wasted years, months or days of non-service to God?), and there will be sorrow, yet the wandering sheep will always, without doubt, return to their eternal Shepherd, for such cannot but be the case, as He has said (John 10:27-29).

Here, then, is the distinction, which all who call themselves by the name of Christ would do well to heed, as even the most learned pastors and theologians have given heed:

Those who are Christ’s will NEVER perish, as He has said, so we must  never give up hope for them, for to do such is to go against God, and such is folly most heinous and dire. We must pray and know that which is His will, NOT because we subjectively deem it to be so, but because He has stated it, and His truth is as objective a ground for our prayers in such a matter as He is the object of our faith by His decree – both are the same, neither can be assumed, but are grounded upon Scripture, the infallible Word of the One and Only God.

If we are blessed enough to see such return to the fold, we are blessed beyond mortal measure, for He has shared a piece of eternity with us at such a time; even as we are blessed to see a sinner accept Christ by the Spirit’s regeneration, so is this such that we are to rejoice with heaven!

I am not speaking to apostasy here, but of those who have strayed without denial of our Lord – their present behavior may be ungodly and even worldly, yet their sorrow for their sin will remain, and the Lord will bring them back to Himself and His covenant people.

In cases of doubt, we need to remember this admonition and command:

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15:  If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

Ask Your Pastor About This Passage...

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?  (Ro 9:6–24). 


As D. Martyn Lloyd Jones notes:

One advantage in preaching through a book of the Bible, as we are proposing to do, is that it compels us to face every single statement come what may, and stand before it, and look at it, and allow it to speak to us. Indeed it is interesting to observe that not infrequently certain well-known Bible teachers never face certain Epistles at all in their expositions because there are difficulties which they are resolved to avoid.*

 *Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (237). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones (On Preaching)

‘… on another occasion I stand in this pulpit labouring as it were left to myself, preaching badly and utterly weak, and the devil has come and said, ‘There will be nobody there at all next Sunday’, But thank God I have found on the following Sunday a larger congregation. That is God’s method of accountancy. You never know. I enter a pulpit in weakness and I end with power, I enter with self confidence and I am made to feel a fool. It is God’s accountancy. He knows us so much better than we know ourselves … His book-keeping is the most romantic thing I know of in the whole world,

Preaching should make such a difference to a man who is listening that he is never the same again. Preaching, in other words, is a transaction between the preacher and the listener. It does something for the soul of a man, for the whole of the person, the entire man; it deals with him in a vital and radical manner.

We wound in order to heal; we knock down in order to lift up.

The thing that has given me greatest pleasure, and greatest encouragement of all the things I have ever been told that people say about my ministry, is this. It was said by a lady, who remonstrated, and said, ‘This man preaches to us as if we were sinners!’

Preaching is designed to do something to people.

Let me say it once more: if the preaching of the gospel does not make you think, and think as you have never thought in your life before, it is very bad preaching.

Peter stood up and he preached. He did not spend hours in a study polishing his phrases, thinking of clever illustrations—oh, such a thing is so repugnant to the New Testament gospel. Here was a man, alive, and he wanted other people to be alive. Here was a man who felt the burden of souls and so he brought his whole great statement of the gospel to this focus, to this point of application. And that should be the aim of all preaching … Do you get tired of hearing me saying the same things, my friends? Well, I am just doing what the Apostle Peter did (2 Peter 1 verses 12–13). I am sure he was right and I am sure I am right! Our greatest trouble always is that we forget … And I think this is the call that comes more than ever before to ministers today. Christian people are forgetting things they have known, and that is why we are in the present muddle and confusion; and the business of preaching is to go on reminding them.

There is all the difference in the world between having your preaching controlled by theology, and preaching theology. Our preaching should always be controlled by theology, we must always be scriptural in our presentation of the truth, but that is a very different thing from preaching theology.

 *Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (232-235). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

Who Argues Like Who?

It seems that the rise of continuationism (the gifts of tongues, prophecies e.t.c will not end until the return of Christ) has become a popular thing in Christianity. Here I am not speaking of the outrageous claims from the extreme Charismatics where they have mastered a warped view of pneumatology with little or no understanding of all the other ologies- Christology, anthropology, harmartiology, soteriology, eschatology e.t.c.). No, the rise seems to be with young Calvinists or those that have a sound grasp on most of the other theologies. These men have a good understanding of the doctrines of God (including His triunity), man, sin, salvation.

They seem to be on the rise and they're throwing down the gauntlet. It is becoming quite popular to hear them make claims like, "Cessationists argue like Arminians" or "Cessationism is rationalism." Some are even so bold as to claim that cessationism (the belief that the sign gifts are not for today) is "post-enlightenment deism." There is definitely a resurgence in continuationism and some of the proponents are very loud and vocal about it.

Sinclair Ferguson notes:

The most pressing difficulty of analysis arises when we consider the nature of speaking in tongues and prophecy. This is due to a paradoxical combination of circumstances on the one hand, the apparent decline of these gifts in the period following the end of the apostolic era and, on the other hand, the dramatic surge in claims of their restoration or continuation in the past century of the history of the church, but the spasmodic character of the evidence simply underlines their absence from mainstream Christian experience. 

The revival or restoration of these phenomena, claimed today, while statistically overwhelming, creates additional complexity in assessing the identification claimed between the New Testament and the contemporary phenomena, and also the differing interpretations of their significance. Contemporary restorationists, seeking an explanation for this, tend to conclude either that most Christians between the second and twentieth centuries did not exercise enough faith in an appropriate way, or that the reappearance of these gifts presages the dawning of the final days. The weakness of the former view is that it is scarcely consistent with the often-repeated testimony that, for example, the experience of speaking in tongues comes unbidden and in a sovereign fashion. (Why did not it come sovereignly throughout the ages?)*

I must be missing something since the witness of church history is that shortly after the New Testament era the miraculous gifts seemed to fall from the scene? How then can cessationism be attributed to "post-enlighten ment?" 


It makes for good rhetoric (all of which I am for so long as it can be substantiated) just like the allegation that cessationists argue like Arminians. I would appreciate such rhetoric if it were proven. If one could draw a line from point A to Z. I just don't see the connection. But two can play this game. If cessationists argue like Arminians then continuationists argue like Roman Catholics. This I hope to demonstrate. The main argument from informed continuationists is that there is no passage of Scripture which teaches that the sign gifts have ceased before the second coming of Christ our King, therefore they must continue until that day. Simply put an argument from silence (which is an interesting and ironic argument since most present day coninuationists are credobaptists and will not allow for that kind of argumentation from paedobaptists that make a similar argument that in the Old Testament the covenant people of God were commanded to include their children and have them circumcised; since baptism replaces circumcision and there is no verse or passage which rescinds the command to include children it must continue. These continuationist credobaptists will not accept  such argumentation). Is not this the same way in which Rome argues for the papacy? "Show me where in the Bible it says that Apostles have ended?" as one Roman Catholic hurled at me in his attempt to defend the Pope. No one can point any single verse which says explicitly "apostleship has ended." Rome also believes in Revelation beyond Scripture which adherents of continuationism do as well (though drastically in a different manner). The continautionist will immediately point (correctly) to Acts 1:21-26. But the continuationist is inconsistent here. If, as they teach concerning visions and dreams, why cannot the risen Christ appear to a person in a dream or vision and establish them as an apostle? See the continuationist will not accept any such vision or dream even though they believe them to be subjectively authoritative and since they cannot point to any single passage that that says apostleship has ended they must rely on a theological approach (rightly so). But again they will not allow for that hermeneutic when it comes to issue of the miraculous gifts. They simply fall back on "there is no verse in the Bible that says they have ended." Who argues like who?

"Cessationism is rationalism." Now that is just an irrational statement.

In the words of Burk Parsons:

When I am asked to explain particular passages of Scripture that, according to some people, teach that the sign gifts of the apostolic era have not ceased, I usually respond with this question: “Do you believe that Scripture is the final Word of God?” Thankfully, every answer has been in the affirmative; still, the inquirer usually presses me with another question, such as, “What Biblical evidence is there to support your view that the sign gifts have ceased?” I often respond similarly: “What Biblical evidence is there to support your view that the sign gifts have continued?” At that point, the discussion usually dives to the ground in a tailspin of emotions and fanciful maneuvering. My opponent usually relates experience after experience, with great intensity, then levels his most disparaging attack: “Are you telling me you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is still at work?”

This type of remark is quite typical, and it is perhaps the most untenable conclusion that many charismatics have made. Although we do not affirm the continuation of the sign gifts, by no means do we disavow me genuine work of the Spirit of the living God. On the contrary, through the exercise of the non-revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit still displayed in the church—preaching, teaching, exhortation (Rom. 12:6–8)—we, who were enemies of God, dead in our trespasses, have become living sons of the living God. Indeed, the Holy Spirit has worked great wonders in our hearts, and He who established His redemptive plan before the foundation of the world has carried out His plan with great signs and wonders, and has sealed us in the Holy Spirit for our day of redemption (Eph. 4:30).*

I conclude with Calvin (on the accusation from Rome that the Reformation had no miraculous sign(s) to authenticate it), "We have no novel message. We need no novel outpouring of the miraculous."






*Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), p.211-212

*Tabletalk Magazine: April 2002. 2002 (13). Lake Mary, FL: Ligonier Ministries, Inc.

A.W. Pink On Another Gospel

The gospel of Satan is not a system of revolutionary principles, nor yet a program of anarchy. It does not promote strife and war, but aims at peace and unity. It seeks not to set the mother against her daughter nor the father against his son, but fosters the fraternal spirit whereby the human race is regarded as one great “brotherhood.” It does not seek to drag down the natural man, but to improve and uplift him. It advocates education and cultivation and appeals to the best that is within—It aims to make this world such a comfortable and congenial habitat that Christ’s absence from it will not be felt and God will not be needed. It endeavors to occupy man so much with this world that he has no time or inclination to think of the world to come. It propagates the principles of self-sacrifice, charity and benevolence, and teaches us to live for the good of others, and to be kind to all. It appeals strongly to the carnal mind and is popular with the masses, because it ignores the solemn facts that by nature man is a fallen creature, alienated from the life of God, and dead in trespasses and sins, and that his only hope lies in being born again.

In contradistinction to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of Satan teaches salvation by works. It inculcates justification before God on the ground of human merits. Its sacramental phrase is “Be good and do good;” but it fails to recognize that in the flesh there dwelleth no good thing. It announces salvation by character, which reverses the order of God’s Word—character by, as the fruit of, salvation. Its various ramifications and organizations are manifold. Temperance, Reform Movements, “Christian Socialist Leagues,” Ethical Culture Societies, “Peace Congresses” are all employed (perhaps unconsciously) in proclaiming this gospel of Satan—salvation by works. The pledge card is substituted for Christ; social purity for individual regeneration, and politics and philosophy, for doctrine and godliness. The cultivation of the old man is considered more practical than the creation of a new man in Christ Jesus; whilst universal peace is looked for apart from the interposition and return of the Prince of Peace.

The apostles of Satan are not saloon-keepers and white-slave traffickers, but are for the most part ordained ministers. Thousands of those who occupy our modern pulpits are no longer engaged in presenting the fundamentals of the Christian Faith, but have turned aside from the Truth and have given heed unto fables. Instead of magnifying the enormity of sin and setting forth its eternal consequences, they minimize it by declaring that sin is merely ignorance or the absence of good. Instead of warning their hearers to “flee from the wrath to come” they make God a liar by declaring that He is too loving and merciful to send any of His own creatures to eternal torment. Instead of declaring that “without shedding of blood is no remission,” they merely hold up Christ as the great Exemplar and exhort their hearers to “follow in His steps.” Of them it must be said, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3). Their message may sound very plausible and their aim appear very praiseworthy, yet we read of them—“for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves (imitating) into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing [not to be wondered at] if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:13–15).*

*Pink, A. W. (2005). The Arthur Pink anthology. Bellingham, WA.: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Who Are You To Preach!?

The "Doctor" answers:

I would not be a preacher of the gospel if it did not work. This is no profession to me. I did not come into a pulpit because I want a profession...

 

It is utterly unscriptural for a man to set himself up as a preacher...

A call generally starts in the form of a consciousness within one’s own spirit, an awareness of a kind of pressure being brought to bear … some disturbance in the realm of the spirit … that your mind is being directed to the whole question of preaching. You have not thought of it deliberately, you have not sat down in cold blood to consider possibilities, and then, having looked at several have decided to take this up. It is not that. This is something that happens to you; it is God dealing with you, and God acting upon you by His Spirit; it is something you become aware of rather than what you do. It is thrust upon you; it is presented to you and almost forced upon you constantly in this way....

I would say that the only man who is called to preach is the man who cannot do anything else, in the sense that he is not satisfied with anything else. This call to preach is so put upon him, and such pressure comes to bear upon him that he says, ‘I can do nothing else, I must preach...’

 

A man who feels that he is competent, and that he can do this easily, and so rushes to preach without any sense of fear or trembling, or any hesitation whatsoever, is a man who is proclaiming that he has never been ‘called’ to be a preacher....

I think the calling of a minister, a pastor, the greatest calling in the world. There is nothing I know of that is comparable to watching the Holy Spirit dealing with people, searching them, examining them, revealing truth to them, while you watch their growth and their development.*

*Sargent, T. (2007). Gems from Martyn Lloyd-Jones: An Anthology of Quotations from 'the Doctor' (229-230). Milton Keynes, England; Colorado Springs, CO; Hyderabad, AP: Paternoster.

Weekly Dose Of Lloyd-Jones

The Bible is God’s book, it is a revelation of God, and our thinking must always start with God. Much of the trouble in the Church today is due to the fact that we are so subjective, so interested in ourselves, so egocentric. That is the peculiar error of this present century. Having forgotten God, and having become so interested in ourselves, we become miserable and wretched, and spend our time in ‘shallows and in miseries.’ The message of the Bible from beginning to end is designed to bring us back to God, to humble us before God, and to enable us to see our true relationship to Him. And that is the great theme of this Epistle; it holds us face to face with God, and what God is, and what God has done; it emphasizes throughout the glory and the greatness of God—God the Eternal One, God the everlasting, God over all—and the indescribable glory of God. This great theme appears constantly in the various phrases which the Apostle uses. Here are examples—‘Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will’; ‘having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself’; ‘in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.’ God, the eternal and everlasting God, self-sufficient in Himself, from eternity to eternity, needing the aid of no-one, living, dwelling in His own everlasting, absolute and eternal glory, is the great theme of this Epistle. We must not start by examining ourselves and our needs microscopically; we must start with God, and forget ourselves. In this Epistle we are taken as it were by the hand by the Apostle and are told that we are going to be given a view of the glory and the majesty of God. As we approach this study I seem to hear the voice that came of old to Moses from the burning bush saying, ‘Take off thy shoes from off thy feet for the ground whereon thou standest is holy ground.’ We are in the presence of God and His glory; so we must tread carefully and humbly.

But not only so, we are at once face to face with the sovereignty of God. Think of the terms which we find constantly running through the Scriptures, the great words and expressions of true Christian doctrine and theology. How little have we heard of them in this present century with our morbid, pre-occupied subjectivism! how little have we been told about the glory, the greatness, the majesty and the sovereignty of God! Our forefathers delighted in these terms; these were the terms of the Protestant Reformers, the terms of the Puritans and the Covenanters. They delighted to spend time contemplating the attributes of God.

*Lloyd-Jones, D. M. (1978). God's Ultimate Purpose : An Exposition of Ephesians 1, 1 to 23 (13–14). Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust.

A Letter To My Future Wife

Over the last year, I have been diligently reading and listening to sermons in an attempt to get ready for marriage. I thought that it might be beneficial to the body of Christ (especially to young single men), if they could see what is on my mind, and in my heart (not because I am an expert of any kind, but because I have been diligently reading other godly men, and diving into the word, in order to find out how I could be a godly and loving husband). Mainly this letter IS for my future wife, and for myself (to serve me as a reminder), but I invite you to read, and reconsider whether our expectations are egocentric or Christ-centered.

Dear, Love

I've decided to write you a letter- now that we aren't married- to let you know of the things I expect from myself to give to you. These things will serve as a reminder to me, as I await the day where we will become one.

The Things I Expect From Myself To Give To You

Notice that I said- "The Things I Expect From MYSELF To Give To YOU". Too often in marriage, and unfortunately in Christian marriages, there is this self-fish focus on behalf of both spouses, where they enter into marriage attempting to find someone who will fulfill all their self-fish needs- this does not glorify our Lord. The husband's love for his wife should "not seek it's own self-interest". Instead, it should seek the interest of the other (which leads to my first point).

• I expect from myself to seek your self-interest above my own.

Marriage is the union of two imperfect people coming together. With that being said- I don't expect you to fulfill all my "needs" (not that you are incapable of supplying me my needs, but I understand that you WILL fail me at times, and sometimes my "needs" aren't really needs). Rather, instead of focusing on your failures, I will focus on improving on mine. I will focus on loving you in spite of your shortcomings. Your self interest will be my duty. Not only in the "big" things, but also in the most minute of details, in all that is important to you.

• I expect to provide for you financially. 

It is the duty of every man to provide for his wife and family. And a Christian man that does not, "has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever" (1st Timothy 5:8). At the same time, we must remember that even if we have financial burdens, it is not the end of the world. For we do not live for this world. We must always find our joy in the risen savior. In the riches that are in Him. On the other hand, this does not mean that I am not currently working on preparing myself financially for our future. I am doing just that, and with the Lord's providence, we will be just fine. 

• I expect to give my life for you as our Savior gave His for the Church

I believe this entails all of life. I will not only seek to please your material needs, but your spiritual ones as well. Further, I ought to seek your happiness when you are sad, I ought to seek your healing when you are hurt, I ought to seek to provide in all that you need. Even in those things that might seem minuscule to me, if they bother you, I ought to find a solution. My life will be given for yours.

John Gill expresses it more eloquently

Husbands, love your wives,.... Which consists in a strong and cordial affection for them; in a real delight and pleasure in them; in showing respect, and doing honour to them; in seeking their contentment, satisfaction, and pleasure; in a quiet, constant, and comfortable dwelling with them; in providing all things necessary for them; in protecting them from all injuries and abuses; in concealing their faults, and covering their infirmities; in entertaining the best opinion of their persons and actions; and in endeavouring to promote their spiritual good and welfare: this love ought to be hearty and sincere, and not feigned and selfish; it should be shown in private, as well as in public: it should be chaste and single, constant and perpetual; it should exceed that which is bore to neighbours, or even to parents, and should be equal to that a man bears to himself; though not so as to hinder, and break in upon love to God and Christ: many are the reasons why husbands should love their wives; they are given to be helps unto them; they are companions of them; they are wives of covenant; they are their own wives, yea, their own bodies, their own flesh, nay, as themselves; they are their image and their glory; and especially the example of Christ, in his love to his church and people, should engage to it:

I love you, awretchsaved