Of Bouncers and Bees

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”
John 6:44

“I drew them with gentle cords,
With bands of love,
And I was to them as those
who take the yoke from their neck.
I stooped and fed them.”
Hosea 11:4

Is there not a cause?

I have recently had some discussion with some who are persuaded that God’s work in saving the soul of a person is fully causal; in other words, that God overpowers their will, making them submit to the grace of the Gospel. This is part of a Calvinistic doctrine called Irresistible Grace, or Sovereign Grace.

I am not ashamed to say I fully reject this idea. The objection I get all the time to my objection is the assertion that if we allow a person to actually have a choice in the matter of his salvation, then his claim that he exercised his free will to accept Jesus takes away glory from God, and this person is actually rising up in pride that he chose salvation. Oh my! Scandal! Isn’t this person just using the free will ability God gave him in the right way?

It is true that God does govern some things with a law of cause and effect. God applying the adequate cause will always get the desired effect. This is how God governs the inanimate creation, such as planets and atoms. He also does this over the non-moral animate creation, the animals and plants.

When it comes to free will moral agents, however, God has to use something else to allow them to be accountable and receive blame or praise for evil or good. God gives the power to choose. This we call free will. When God gave this ability to angels and men, He had to relinquish using cause and effect upon them. If God ever does cause a person to do something, then He suspends the accountability for those actions. The Bible tells us that at key times God has done this in order to accomplish certain plans. You may recall that a few times, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (or will).

What tips the scales

But for every place in the Bible you see God doing that, I assure you, you can read dozens more verses that show God speaking to man’s own ability and need to choose, to obey, to repent, whatever. One thing is clear in the Bible: God cannot make or force man to love Him. Nor can he give man so much evidence of his existence that it will overpower his will, forcing him to believe.

Take these verses that speak of God “causing” man to do something, and those that speak of free will, and put each type on a side of a balance, you will get the free will verses far outweighing the other. But some think that you have to take the free will idea, funnel them into the far fewer verses about causation and somehow make all the free will follow under causation. That is one of the largest self-contradictions and most absurd things ever proposed in religion.

One of the greatest issues that is never taught adequately from the pulpit is the clear distinction between a CAUSE and an INFLUENCE. And this is where so much confusion and many false notions come from. When it comes to getting man to love his Creator, God has only one thing He can use: INFLUENCE and PERSUASION. All the things we talk about, such as the Grace of God, the power of Jesus on the cross, the drawing of the Holy Spirit and the demonstration of the love of God, are means of persuading and influencing a person to yield his heart to God. Sometimes, God can even pour enough influence on someone to the very threshold of choice, but He cannot push him over it.

A big push or pull?

Let's illustrate causation first. Suppose you may be sitting at church during service. Perhaps I came as a guest speaker for one sermon and I come up to the pulpit. Now, you have the power to choose to leave. You feel like being polite though and choose to stay, to see what I will say. Obviously, and thankfully, just my presence at the pulpit didn't force or cause you to leave.

But while I am talking, a couple of buff and burly bouncers from the local nightclub come in. They come close to you, each one grabs one of your arms, and they lift you off the pew and off the floor. You kick and struggle, but they are too strong for you. They soon walk right out the doors taking you with them.

My friend, that is causation! You had no choice, you had no say in what they did to you. And you left the church. But, not voluntarily. No one can blame you for leaving church early!

Now, what about an influence? The first thing we must say about an influence that is different from a cause is that it can vary in strength.

A cause—when God uses it—always is just strong enough to overpower a person’s will. It obviously can’t be weaker than that, can it? But it won’t be stronger than that either.  Why would God need to exert anything stronger? I think God is the most efficient in the use of his attributes.

Some influences are weak or gentle, and some, as I mentioned before, may just bear pressure upon someone to nearly, but not actually, force his will.

A weak influence may be someone saying, “Do you think you should read your Bible?” But what about a strong one? When God brought the plagues on Egypt, it was partly to show judgement on their gods. However, it also was a strong form of persuasion. “Hey, Pharaoh, you won't let my people go? Very well, then, I will influence you a little bit, to get your permission to let them go!”

Let's get back to my speaking engagement at your church. I think I can influence you to leave the building. The choice will be entirely yours. Unlike the bouncers,  I can't pick you up and carry you out.

But let’s say I pull out a jar. I show you there are some bees inside this covered jar, just minding their own business. Now I shake this jar and get these bees a little agitated. Then I open the jar and let the bees loose in the sanctuary.

Do you think you would stay in your pew? My friend, that is a strong influence. What would you choose to do? You say, “I would just react without thinking, and run out.” True, but you still could suppress your instinctive response and choose to stay, regardless of the consequences.

Come to think of it, I may just run out, too!

The big draw

How are we to take Jesus’ statement in John 6:44? Is it causal or influential?  Really, it is up to your presuppositions how you view it.

God’s drawing on someone can be likened either way. You might think something like drawing water out of a well, or a fish on a line out of the water.

Then again, perhaps it’s like coaxing a horse to come to you using an apple or some fresh grass; or like trying to lure a bear or lion into a trap. True, the animals are instinct-driven, but sometimes you still may not get the results you want.

I will take John 6:44 and related verses as God using influences He feels are appropriate, which many times includes my choice to be involved as a fellow laborer with Christ.

What about you? Will you let God’s influences speak to you and give Him your whole heart?

God Speaks Using -- a Pair of Dirty Underwear?

For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me.

Perhaps this sounds strange. But there are many passages of Scripture that speak of certain unpleasant things, only the translators have been discreet in their choice of words to make things more presentable, especially considering public reading.

Even the scholars of the Septuagint were apt to do the same. Consider this verse from the Psalms:
“Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see; And make their loins shake continually.”
Psalm 69:23

Now this is how it reads in the Hebrew text. But the Septuagint, as quoted by Paul, says:
“Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, And bow down their back always.”

Now you might not think that is an accurate translation, nor even idiomatic equivalency, but it is an inventive way of being more discreet in saying about the same thing. Those translators used a symptom of the original words. I mean, guys, what would you be doing if your loins were shaking continually?

Anyway, before I get even more long-winded away from my topic, let me direct you to the passage in question.

Jeremiah 13: 1 - 11.

Just to make sure, I will paste the whole passage to encourage you to read all of it.

Jer.13.1-11 NKJV “Thus the Lord said to me: “Go and get yourself a linen sash, and put it around your waist, but do not put it in water.” So I got a sash according to the word of the Lord , and put it around my waist. And the word of the Lord came to me the second time, saying, “Take the sash that you acquired, which is around your waist, and arise, go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a hole in the rock.” So I went and hid it by the Euphrates, as the Lord commanded me. Now it came to pass after many days that the Lord said to me, “Arise, go to the Euphrates, and take from there the sash which I commanded you to hide there.” Then I went to the Euphrates and dug, and I took the sash from the place where I had hidden it; and there was the sash, ruined. It was profitable for nothing. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Thus says the Lord : ‘In this manner I will ruin the pride of Judah and the great pride of Jerusalem. This evil people, who refuse to hear My words, who follow the dictates of their hearts, and walk after other gods to serve them and worship them, shall be just like this sash which is profitable for nothing. For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me,’ says the Lord , ‘that they may become My people, for renown, for praise, and for glory; but they would not hear.’”

So Jeremiah was commanded to do a rather odd thing. Buy a sash, wear it all the time and don't ever wash it.

If you are not familiar with Jeremiah or other prophets, you would be interested to know that similar strange instructions were given to them. Such things as walking around naked, digging holes in walls, laying on one side for days while cooking food over a fire fueled by burning dung, and naming their kids' names more weird than Moon Unit, they were commanded to do, to mention a few. The purpose God had in all these and similar things was to illustrate the message to the people through the experience of the prophet, and so the prophet could be an emotional and empathic conduit for God's message.

This one request seems rather tame when you first read it, especially with our antiseptic translations. But if you look up other translations and do a word study of the term used here for sash, you can get the idea that it was more than just a belt or fanny pack.

In fact, the word actually means a loincloth. Back then they used these to gird up their privates, and in some really non-developed cultures today they may still use loincloths. Today’s equivalent would be a pair of underwear.

Knowing that, reconsider God's command to Jeremiah. He wanted him to put on a pair of underwear, keep wearing it, and never wash it! “Thanks, Lord,” Jerry said,  “that’s just what I need! I already am a menace and an annoyance to everyone in Jerusalem. Now I need to be stinky, too? Alright, what’s the reason for all this?”

Of course, the Lord had a very good reason for this. As the passage above states, God wanted to show  the Jews how He designed his relationship with them to be. “I have caused the whole house of Israel and Judah to cling to Me, just like this loincloth.” But it wasn’t a clean one, if you noticed, even before Jeremiah went and hid it away.

“Oh, my!” you exclaim, “That must mean God accepts me just as I am, even though I am all dirty and smelly with all my sin, that I have not stopped doing!"

No, that is not at all what God is saying. Keep in mind, in what Jeremiah did, he symbolized God and his loincloth represented the people of Israel and Judah. So whatever got the loincloth “dirty,” when it was on his body, came from the one it was clinging to, in other words, God. Umm, would that be sin? I don’t think so.

You see, this whole bit Jeremiah went through was an illustration of God's intimacy with the people of Israel, or at least the intimacy he wished for. So let’s take the idea one step further.

What is the most personal article of clothing you wear day in and day out? (And I am sorry if this seems to get a bit TMI.) Most of us would answer, of course, our underwear. What are the particulars about that? Well, you can safely say that whatever you experience through your day, your underwear is right there with you. It absorbs any sweat you give off, and takes on evidence of all of your private functions—everything. Now you are used to making sure you have a clean pair every day, but what would happen if you wore the same pair for a whole week? Perhaps it might get a little clingy. One thing’s for sure, it would certainly reflect you. Any forensics expert would be able to analyze it and say, “This has you all over it!”

“For as the sash clings to the waist of a man, so I have caused the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah to cling to Me,” says the Lord, “that they may become My people, for renown, for praise, and for glory; but they would not hear.”

So, what does God really want? He wants us to cling to a true relationship with Him, just as close and constant as that pair of underwear. Whatever He may do, His “sweat” should be absorbed by us. And it should show when others look at us, or observe our lives. Are we close enough to God to know what He feels about what’s going on around us? Are we willing to be that close? That’s what He’s always wanted of you and me.

Look how He has been disappointed so much in the past. He’s been overlooked, ignored, rejected and refused.

Let us not continue to contribute to God’s pain, but be ones close to Him to make Him happy.

What Would the Body and the Blood Literally Mean?

“Protestants don’t really believe everything Christ said,” a staunch Roman Catholic said to me. “He said, ‘This is my body,’ and ‘This is my blood.’ But Protestants don’t take that literally, like they say they take the rest of the Bible.”

Besides his many other opinions on things Catholic vs Protestant, this was the most critical challenge brought to me by this person. (I think perhaps somewhere in this person’s past, someone as a Protestant greatly offended him, and that has brought a root of bitterness into his outlook that has guided his religious life.)

But because of this statement, my thoughts turned to the teaching he referred to, the central dogma of the Roman Catholic faith: transubstantiation, the belief and teaching that when a priest consecrates the host and wine during Mass, they transform into the “literal” physical body and blood of Jesus. So consequently, when the priest raises his just-consecrated host and says, “This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,” it is to be worshipped as Jesus. (Either this is true worship, or most grievous idolatry—if God does not overlook it as a mere fallacy.)

Now either this teaching is true or it is not (obviously). His claim is that the scriptures teach this, that the words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper were to be taken literally, not metaphorically, to establish this transubstantiation doctrine as scriptural.

I am not writing this to attack anyone’s faith. I know many devout Catholics who, aside from their particular dogmas, I would say give sufficient evidence of having a heart faith relationship to Christ. Perhaps God has grace for many of our false beliefs, fallacies and misconceptions, as long as they do not turn us to sin against God’s moral law.

Anyway, let’s see what in my mind must be the implications of the reality of this if the words of Jesus were to be taken literally, and what happens at a Catholic Mass is true.

I will start with the Body of Christ. Jesus said of the bread he broke and gave to the disciples, “This is my body, broken for you.” Now, here’s what we know of Jesus’ body in its current situation. Christ’s body was raised from the dead—his body is currently in heaven, and it is made up of cells with DNA that can be traced all the way back to king David. Also, there are a finite number of cells in Jesus’ body that had been offered on the cross and rose again, otherwise, the humanity of Christ is no longer truly humanity. Glorified it may be, but still human, and his cells do not need to reproduce, because they will not die, they are raised incorruptible. All this is straight from the Bible.

Now, if the consecration of the hosts in Mass is to be literally the body of Christ, they must be his real body cells, with the cytoplasm, DNA and all, otherwise it is not literally his body. If we say, it is a re-creation of his body, like a clone of the original, then it is not a literal true fulfillment of the scripture. For it has to be his real body to be literally true.

So Christ’s body cells must be taken from his body in heaven constantly, to be transferred somehow (by angels?) to earth to be “put” into the substratum of the host or bread being consecrated. (By the way, why aren’t the words of consecration in Aramaic or Hebrew, instead of Latin?) Otherwise, there are not enough “real” cells of Jesus’ body to make millions of hosts turn into his literal body all around the world every hour of every day. Then these cells are being eaten, and they need to be removed supernaturally from the recipients’ stomachs before being digested, so they may be re-used into another consecrated batch of hosts soon later. This all seems rather absurd to me, rather than a mystery.

So which is a literal fulfillment of Jesus’ words?

Jesus’ body broken on the Cross.

or        

Cloned cells of Jesus (not broken).

By the way, accurate knowledge of human anatomy and the laws of physics and chemistry were mainly unknown in the time of Gregory the Great, the man who promulgated this doctrine into a full fledged dogma in the Catholic Church. But, maybe you can get away with replicated body cells here, or “proxy” body cells.

However, when it comes to the blood, there are very specific terms to keep in line with if we are to take it literally. In the Gospel of Mark the words of Christ are very pointed: “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” Mark 14:24. Note the words: if it is literally his blood, then is is literally shed.

Now at this first consecration, Jesus had not shed his blood yet. But we are to take this literally. That means that the blood in that cup (which must be literally what was now in that cup, if transubstantiation is true) was the blood of Jesus that was going to be shed during his passion and on the cross, otherwise it is not literally true. So, I repeat, if then and there it was his actual blood, it must be, for it to be true, that that blood in that cup was going to be shed on the cross. Somehow, that blood had to get from that cup back into Jesus’ veins (before it could be digested in the disciples’ stomachs) and be there in his body to be spilled out for sins at the crucifixion.

Jesus only had about 10 pints of blood in his body that was shed during his passion and crucifixion. Now if the blood in all the consecrated chalices in every Roman Catholic Mass is truly Jesus’ blood, it must be the blood that was shed. Proxy, cloned blood cannot be what is there, because it would never have been shed for sins at the cross. I’m just keeping it literal, now.

Which is the true “literal” fulfillment of this scripture? Which is the actual blood of Christ that was shed?

10 pints of blood in Jesus’ veins.          
(Shed on the cross and during his passion.)

 or
      
Tons of cloned blood, copies of the original          
blood. (Never shed at the cross.)

So, if these things are so, the cloning of his body and blood cells is not sufficient to be a literal fulfillment of the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and therefore is no more “literal” than a metaphor. For a clone of his cells, may look and be in all other respects the same, but they were never in his body, nor ever suffered nor were shed at the cross.

So, in my mind, to hold onto this belief, you must pile on absurdity on top of absurdity to make it consistent with its claims.

On Searching Hearts and Anthropomorphisms

An Anthropomorphism Claimed

During one Wednesday evening prayer time our pastor mentioned a comment on some statement or verse (I do not recall what exactly) that it was an anthropomorphism regarding God’s knowing or searching hearts. Was he implying by his comment is that we should not take it as faithfully as it was stated in the verse? What he was getting at I was not sure.

I didn’t say anything because I was trying to process that statement. I find myself questioning the extent of what is an anthropomorphism or how far we take the scriptural descriptions of God’s activities and self-disclosures to man as such. I think this is important because we as evangelicals aim to take the bible at face value, that is, that what the text appears to say is what it should mean, once we take the context and cultural environs into consideration.

An Anthropomorphism Identified

First of all, it is apparent that God reveals himself to man through the bible using all sorts of literary methods; he uses metaphor, simile, parable, illustration, hyperbole, and anthropomorphism, as well as others. All of these, I hope you would agree, he used to convey the reality of what he is like to those with whom he desires a relationship, in a way they can understand and be accurate and as close to reality as possible.

The Jews were a simple agricultural people, in general without a high degree of learning, so as simple a way of conveying himself to them was what he was aiming for. I don’t think that means God doesn’t reveal much or a profound degree of truth. By no means. The truth God conveyed is simple in its approach, but still chock full of inexhaustible depth. It’s kind of a paradox. But what I think this implies is that God’s method was honest, as direct as possible and candid; and meant to be grasped without a lot of double-thinking. Like, “God said this, but he really meant this.”
“Well, why didn’t he just say what he meant?”

Obvious as anthropomorphisms would be such as “the arm of the Lord,” “upon eagles wings,” and so forth. These are things explaining and describing the way God acted, needing an image that we could relate to. However, is not the image God describes nonetheless accurate to the nature of his activity?

An Anthropomorphism Analyzed?

What about such things as “I was crushed by their adulterous heart which has departed from Me,” (Ezek. 6:9) or “I am sorry that I have made them?” (Gen. 6:7) How are we to think of these and others; as direct statements honestly revealing God’s heart; or as some kind of anthropomorphic accommodation to man’s limited mind, where in reality God is not close to this reaction?

Take where God says “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isa 55:8-9) I take notice God says “higher” rather than “other” or “alien.” I think God means his level of thinking and acting (of course in holiness and so forth) is way above us, but not to say it is distinctly different in process or nature. After all, as we are fond of saying, man is made in God’s image. That must mean there is a basis upon which we can relate to God and he to us.

I am thinking that any kind of anthropomorphism is not God relating to us something totally different than he is, but that any anthropomorphism is bringing the intensity of his actions and reactions down to our level. In other words, for example, God’s feelings of hurt by man’s sin is infinitely more intense than we could ever comprehend, so it is toned down when he communicates it to us, so it can then “fit” into our mind’s eye.

An Anthropomorphism Searched?

Throughout the scriptures it says of God that he “searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts.” (1 Chron. 28:9) Indeed, “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways.” (Jer. 17:10) And, “I am He who searches the minds and hearts.” (Rev 2:23) I take note it never lays emphasis that God simply knows the heart of man by some kind of intuition, but that he knows because he searches the heart of man. In fact he does so continually, as Job complained of, saying “Will you leave me alone one minute so I can swallow?” (Job 7:19) Now I could not explain in a short space any kind of philosophy as to how or why this is so, but doesn’t the scripture say so consistently? And why would we say this is only an anthropomorphism? And if it is, then what does God actually do? It is simply describing the activity of God, what he does.

The scripture is rife with statements declaring that God searches out the thoughts and mind and heart of people. If this does not reflect reality, then how should we understand it? Here’s how I make it out, and please excuse me if I go out on a limb and even sound heretical; I simply aim to be candid about this.

God is distinct from his creation. This ought to be an agreed upon declaration. Otherwise we need to say we may be pantheists, if we say the creation is part of God or some such idea. Even though the truth of God’s omnipresence is accepted, he is still different from his creation; it is outside of his existence. So, then, how can he know it? Not in the same way he knows himself, by simply looking into his own mind, by intuition, essentially. He must need to examine it as something outside  himself, much as we need to examine any object outside of ourselves, to gather information about its current characteristics and state of nature. So it does not bother me to assume that God may constantly actually be “taking readings” of all his creation over every possible millisecond.

And I don’t think that is an anthropomorphism; it simply describes God’s real activity.

[Golden] Calf Down the River!

I live by a philosophy that taking in a lot of Old Testament with the New Testament is a good thing. Years ago, at a Lamb concert, I remember one of them (Coghill or Chernoff, I can’t remember who) comparing the Bible to a cake. He said the New Testament is the icing on the cake, but you’re expected to eat the cake (i.e. the Old Testament) under the icing as well. And there’s a whole lot more cake than icing!

Anyway...

That brings me to this one passage in Deuteronomy:

And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.
Deuteronomy 9:21

After the Israelites had sinned against the Lord with the golden calf, Moses was angry and broke the original Ten Commandments tablets in their sight. He also took direct action with the object of their sin, the golden calf. In the first account, in the book of Exodus, we read, “And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” (Ex. 32:20 ASV)

Now, this verse taken all on its own, may sound weird or even mean. I have seen old woodcut illustrations of this scene, with Moses pouring the dust of the golden calf into a pool of water and the disobedient Israelites surrounding it and being forced to drink this now gold dust-polluted water. And that would almost be a death sentence right there, because gold dust is poisonous to the human body. Or at best, these Israelites would have gotten very sick.

Well, after all, they deserved it! They had just sinned a great sin, one that virtually broke God’s heart so much, He was thinking of destroying them all and starting the redemption process for a Messianic line all over. “Leave me alone,” He said to Moses, like a wounded lover.

However, now that I read this line in Deuteronomy there is a different angle to think through, a different reason, perhaps.

First of all, there’s this water source to consider...

Where did it come from? This verse says it flowed from the mountain, Mount Horeb, or Sinai as we know it. Was it always there? Actually, in Exodus 17, there was water provided for the people from a rock at the base of Horeb early on in their desert journey, before the giving of the Ten Commandments. The elders of Israel went with Moses all the way to the base of Horeb and struck a rock there and the water flowed out from there to the camp of the people. This first camp for Israel must have been within sight of Horeb, so it wasn’t a far journey to get there.

So, anyway, the water that flowed from Sinai was from some kind of spring or stream. It was not standing water. Now what happens when something as “small as dust” lands in water running downstream—and the downstream speed needn’t even be very fast? You’re right! That stuff will flow out of sight within seconds. By the time the Israelites got down to lap up water from the stream, they would only be drinking fresh water flowing from the mouth of the rock, the source of the stream. In my mind, no dust from that Calf would have been left swirling at that spot.

An Object Lesson

So what was Moses’ reason for casting the dust of the Golden Calf into the water, and then making the Israelites drink from the stream? After all, if it was just to give them a time of refreshment, they could’ve gotten a drink at any time.

I believe Moses (or God via Moses) was trying to teach the people something very important: and that was a very big part of the whole idea of forgiveness. This event was a teaching opportunity, or object lesson, to show the Israelites that they needed to receive God’s provision for their forgiveness.

You see, their “sin,” as Moses called the Golden Calf, he ground down to powder, so that there would be no visible remembrance of that thing left for them. Are we keeping any “remnants” of our old sins around to give nostalgia or “take us back” to those events or practices? God is saying, here in His Word, to get rid of that. Another way to put this: Is our repentance complete? Have we renounced all known sin? Have we left anything around in our hearts in reserve, just in case this thing with Jesus doesn’t pan out, or just to keep a “little something” for ourselves? Is there something in our lives we know God is not happy seeing still hanging around?

Then Moses threw that dust into the stream so that it would flow away from the Israelite camp forever. You see, we need that kind of spiritual water that will wash our sins downstream, never to return! And what do you think that “water” is?

Here are a few possibilities:

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 4:14

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Ephesian 5:26

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
I Corinthians 10:4

Love is the Key

God, whose primary disposition is love, aims more at reconciling us to himself than to see that we suffer for our sin and rebellion. But our part is to acknowledge our sin with true repentance, and come to his source of forgiveness, which is through his Son, Jesus Christ. His invitation is true and sure:

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.