Someone once mentioned to me that Jesus was not born into sin. But since Mary and Joseph were born into the world, they were born into sin, even if they never committed sinned. Doesn't that still mean that both Mary and Joseph were of a sinful nature? And wouldn't that mean that Jesus being born into the world, would be born into sin or born to have a sinful nature even though He is God?
That's a great question Danae. It is one that has brought on many discussions & ideas over the years.
My belief is this: you're right that Mary & Joseph were ordinary human beings, though of course special as they were selected by God to bring forth His Son into the World. And in their humanity, they, like us, were born with a sin nature passed onto us from our first parents. And they would have sinned as well, though some would teach that they (specifically Mary) did not, since they were in every respect human as we are.
So why wouldn't baby Jesus also receive a sin nature like all of us? I see it this way: neither Mary or Joseph contributed to the conception of the babe. That is, Joseph certainly wasn't the father & Mary did not contribute her ovum to this conception. The Bible says in Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
I understand this verse to say that God, by His Spirit overshadowed Mary & placed this Holy Seed (one entirely from God without human intervention) into Mary's womb. So this Seed had not the nature that is passed down through mankind - it is a pure & Holy Seed. So couldn't God just zap Jesus onto the Earth & avoid all this human involvement? Well, the Scriptures speak of this Holy One coming, Who would be the Messiah, born in humanity ( 2 Samuel 7:12,13; Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2), so Jesus was born in fulfilment of all Scriptures, even the Sacrifices which spoke about His redemptive work. Yet, Jesus' Birth was without a sin nature so that He could ultimately be the Perfect Spotless Sacrifice for mankind. So Jesus was tempted of Satan ( Matthew 4:1-11), not to commit sin since He had no sin nature, but Satan wanted to cause the sin nature to be a part of Jesus, just as he did to Adam & Eve. But Jesus resisted this attempt & remained pure ( Hebrews 4:15).
My belief is that Mary, by the grace of God, supplied the ovum necessary for the Word to become flesh. Else he would have not truly been the Son of Man, but another life form.
According to scripture, Jesus Christ would be the seed of the woman, the root of Jesse, the seed of Abraham, made like unto his brethren, the root and offspring of David.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. ( Genesis 3:15)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ( Isaiah 7:14)
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. ( Isaiah 11:10)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. ( Hebrews 2:16-17)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. ( Revelation 22:16)
As was said of Jesus, that He would have His heritage in Eve, of Abraham, of Jesse, made like unto his brethren, the root and offspring of David, tells me that as Mary had this Divine Seed developing in her, being nourished, experiencing all the normal feelings & movements of the Babe within & even bringing Him out in the normal way, is proof sufficient that this Holy Seed brought into the world by Mary had every right & claim to the Davidic line through Mary (& Joseph).
Does then the absence of a 'bloodline' preclude Jesus being what was claimed of Him? Would it be sufficient that a wholly Divine Jesus, born through a human agent, could be included in the lineage all the way back to Adam? Or, if there was a "bloodline" through Mary, would Jesus have a sinful nature as well? Aspects worthy of some thought to Jesus' qualification not only to be wholly Divine but also to His human descendancy.
Thanks for your input Bendito. The reference to 'seed' of course does mean as you suggested, but we have to allow for a wider meaning as prescribed from the Hebrew: which is, 'zera', & this includes 'child, descendant, posterity, race, etc.', as seen in other Scriptures showing this (e.g. Genesis 12:7 & others).
So we could read as you state that the Embryo that was Jesus in Mary's womb, was of her seed coupled with the Divine, or as I believe, that she only carried God's Seed to be brought out into the world. If she supplied her seed for the Word of God to become flesh, then Jesus would have been tainted with the sinful nature of humanity as I don't believe that Mary was sinless. To say that Jesus wouldn't have been so tainted then denies the transmission of the sin nature throughout humanity. Now I know that some believe that Jesus was born with a sin nature & during His testings with Satan & throughout His earthly sojourn, He resisted Satan so that He wouldn't feed that Nature & commit sin. I don't know if you subscribe to this view, but I believe that Jesus didn't have such a nature but His testings from Satan were to instil such a nature in Him as was done to Adam & Eve.
You also state: "Else he would have not truly been the Son of Man, but another life form." I couldn't quite get my head around this one: I understand that a human being can only be one from both the male & female contributions. If one part was of the Divine & the other human, does this also constitute a human being? Or, if both parts were Divine, could a human be formed in such manner? Or seen in another way, if God could create Adam from dust & Eve from his rib, can God not produce another human only from His compilation of seed(s)?
Thank you for the detailed response. I have a better understanding of why Jesus was not sinful.
So you had referenced Heb 4:15 and I have been reviewing this passage along with Heb 7. In particular I noticed that Jesus was referenced as a High Priest through the power of a life that cannot be destroyed ( Heb 7:16). I have 2 questions:
1. Is it though this power of a life that cannot be destroyed that explains why Jesus cannot sin (or did not have a sinful nature?
2. I do not know or understand the backstory of the high priests. Specifically in Heb. 7: 15-28, what was wrong with the old system that required Jesus to be the ultimate high priest?
You're referring now to one of my favourite Bible NT Books, so I'll try & contain myself sharing a bit of the background & answers to your questions.
The Book was written to Christians who were mainly of Jewish background, hence they needed to see from the Scriptures & understand why Jesus was greater in every way being the only suitable Sacrifice for us & to not apostatize by reverting back to Judaism or Jewish thought. Therefore, the Hebrews writer (possibly, Paul), endeavours to show Christ's superiority & of Christianity.
Jesus was superior to the Prophets (1:1-4); to the Angels (1:5 - 2:18); to Moses (3:1-6); & to the Priesthood (5:1 - 10:39). To the Priesthood: Jesus did not come in the line of the priests of old (i.e. through the Levite tribe): He came through David & Judah & yet He came fulfilling the position of Priest. The Hebrews writer explains that Jesus' position exceeded the position & work of the priests: the priests had to offer sacrifices for their sins & for the people, but Jesus fulfilled the role of a High Priest from Heaven, by offering up Himself as the Sacrifice (7:27) & also presently doing a mediating Work in Heaven on our behalf (8:1).
So if Jesus had no earthly qualification to be Priest, it had to be from another. So the typology is taken from King Melchisedec who was a King & served as a priest to his people in Salem (later, Jerusalem). Since there was no record of this king's birth, family or death, Jesus is likened to such an one who served as a priest without coming from a Levitical background. So in Hebrews chap 7, 'perfection' was not realized from the earthly priests (ordained from the 'law of a carnal commandment'), but from one such as Melchisedec (by the authority of an 'endless life', a type of 'eternal existence' of the man Melchisedec).
That Jesus did not sin had nothing to do with 7:16, but that Jesus withstood Satan who determined to make Jesus fail as the eternal Saviour, giving us no further way to salvation.
Going in another direction. I am reading 1st Peter 3 and I have a questions regarding verses 20-21. Specifically, I understand that the flood and the 8 men that were saved from the flood represented water baptism, but I do not completely understand the passage of: "baptism doth also save us...but the answer of a good conscience toward God...". Can you explain this section of verse 21.
Hi Danae, thank you for your interest in understanding more of God's Word. I see the key word in this portion of Scripture as 'conscience'. Peter refers to it in verse 16, where he states about having a good ('clear & clean') conscience. Another way of saying this, is that we need to be fully clear & fully convinced in our hearts in what we believe so that if anyone wants to dispute with us or even speak evil of us, our solid stand & clear testimony before them will be our strength & witness that we are truly changed.
In like manner, our 'good' conscience is what is important in respect to water baptism. As Noah was saved by water, so is the believer saved by water. But Peter qualifies that: it's not the act of immersion that 'saves' us, i.e. as if water baptism washed any of our sins away - No - water baptism doesn't take away sin or even give us a new birth (the Holy Spirit does that), but the act of baptism is for the sake of our conscience. We might rejoice when we first come to know Christ & experience His new birth in us. We might go on confidently in what has taken place in our lives, even share this with others. But Satan isn't far away to make us falter & doubt whether what has happened is of God or from our own desires. Especially when we fall into sin, it's so easy to start wondering about our salvation & we might even become spiritually weak because of it.
So Peter is saying that even though water baptism doesn't save us or clean us of our sin, what it does do, is to give us a physical testimony to others & ourselves, that God has performed a special work in us: that we are now testifying publicly to it & that this act will be a testimony to Satan whenever he taunts us with doubt & fear. So it just helps to keep us in focus, just as partaking at the Lord's Table does, when we remember Christ's death for us. So baptism comes first as we identify with Christ's death & resurrection into new Life & is a witness to all: ourselves & to the evil around us.
You mentioned that we need to be fully clear & fully convinced in our hearts in what we believe. So what do you mean (or can you explain) the idea of "in our heart". I do not know what "Heart" means in terms of how the bible describes. I only really understand the heart as the physical muscle in the body. Otherwise the terminology of the heart is vague to me in the same sense that love and other words are just that...words but without a truly defined meaning. So would gladly appreciate what this means. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
The word 'heart' is a strange word. As you know, we have it in normal English usage & we find it in the Bible as well. There's no specific meaning one can give to it; the best I can do, is to say that the word 'heart' is used when we want to describe someone's innermost being, expressed in the mind, the emotions or in spiritual matters. Just as one's soul & spirit are defined in the Bible & these are the immaterial parts of us, so to our 'heart' is immaterial & probably serves to describe the activity of soul and/or spirit.
The Bible is replete with references to the 'heart': Genesis 6:5,6; Genesis 17:17; Genesis 45:26; Jeremiah 17:9 are just a few examples of the ways that 'heart' is used in the Bible. So when I wrote, "fully convinced in our hearts", my thoughts were on the combination of our mental & emotional aspects, whereby we must firmly believe in mind & display of emotional strength, as we stand against any that should come against us.
As a sideline, the Bible also uses the word 'bowels'. This can refer to our bodily insides ( Genesis 15:4) but also refer to what we denote to the heart, except using the older English expression. So we have Genesis 43:30, Philemon 1:7 as a couple of examples of that. I trust you can see the use of the word 'heart' (& bowels) in Scripture.
Hi Chris, I am stuck understanding another section.
Hi, I am working on Growth Journals and Lesson 5 addresses Discovering the Attributes of God. I am stuck on a question regarding Rev. 22:17. Specifically, why does God give us a choice, since He is soverign (rules over everything)?
Hi Danae, we read here the final words of the risen Jesus speaking to John, concluding with this great invitation. This invitation is to all people, those from Jesus' day ( John 4:9-15): "living water' = "water of life" to all people since that time. And this invitation has always been open to all, all of us who are sinners, that we are to come to Him, to the foot of the Cross, whereby we may find that shed blood to cleanse us from all sin & that "living water" that brings refreshment to our parched & spiritually thirsty hearts. His teaching to the Samaritan woman was that of 'well water' (physical water) that at best can only satisfy us physically & in the short term. But His Water (the spiritual water) is not from a 'well dug into the ground', but from the 'well' deep within the believer continually 'bubbling over & over', bringing deep satisfaction, quenching our thirst & giving assurance of our faith & of everlasting life.
But "why does God give us a choice since He is Sovereign?" Man has always had the power to choose, usually unwisely (I think of the first bad choice made by Adam & Eve). But when it comes to receiving salvation, even though God already knows our response to the Gospel & His Spirit's call (tug) on our hearts, the invitation is always there, because a response is required. If the Gospel is to be preached for a sinner to be saved, that sinner must first sense the Spirit's conviction of that sin & that either produces true repentance or a disregard to it. If that person is appointed to eternal life (according to God's foreknowledge of that person), that conviction in him, must produce something, or else he is merely a machine (robot). We are humans that involuntarily respond to all kinds of situations; & to sin's conviction, we cry out to God for forgiveness & when God sees that torn, wretched soul seeking its hope only in Christ, salvation is granted & permanent. Yes, God is sovereign but He requires our response to His invitation ( Rev 22:17).
Comments by Alex about the blood of the lamb , Chris you do greatly err, if water cd have made us clean ( forgive us our sins ) then Christ shed his BLOOD IN VAIN ) AND THE CROSS was just foolishness , Even John who gave us water baptism told Jesus i have need to be baptised of you. He must increase but i must decrease, i.e water baptism had to decrease and H.G BAPTISM HAD TO INCREASE. REMEMBER Jesus told the woman at the well that drinking of Jacobs well ( water baptism ) wd not quench their thirst for Salvation , Only his living water which is baptism of the H.G WD quence their thirst for SALVATION AS Jesus describes that living water as a well of living water springing up unto everlasting life. John said that when Jesus spoke of water it was the H.G for the H.G WAS NOT YET GIVEN SIMPLY B/C that Jesus was not yet glorified. The point being when JESUS told that woman at the well of living water it was about baptism of the H.G. NOT WATER BAPTISM. JACOBS WATER K LEMME GO
Alex You may want to carefully go over the treads of other peoples comments, you and Chrs agreed water baptism doesn't saves, I thought he made that clear and did an excellent job communicating as usual.
Comments by Alex about Isaiah 11 Isaiah said there shall come a rod outta of the stem of Jesse which was David the Son and a branch shall grow out of his roots which was Solomon the Granson .And God wd not let David the son build that great temple He wd only let Solomon the Granson build the Temple And Solomon means Comforter as the H.G is the Comforter that is gona make our bodies his Temple as the scripture says our bodies are the temple of the H.G. Thus a greater then Solomon is here which is the H.G. the Comforter. And thus we see the Trinity as a Kingdom where the great king is the Granson the H.G THE COMFORTER A GREATER THEN Solomon that is gonna build a temple in Our hearts. Behold the Kingdom of God is with in you. k
Alex, no solomon doesn't mean comforter it means peaceful. and God didn't tell Moses his name was Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Moses asked him and he said I Am that I Am.. I think you're trying to hard to give the Holyspirit a future birthday, you're answering multiple questions that has no connection with one another with the same quote. I'm beginning to believe you're copying and pasting these answers desperately to push your views. This site should be about virtue and spiritual growth, not a personal agenda, atleast try helping someone by answering one of there questions and show you care.
My belief is this: you're right that Mary & Joseph were ordinary human beings, though of course special as they were selected by God to bring forth His Son into the World. And in their humanity, they, like us, were born with a sin nature passed onto us from our first parents. And they would have sinned as well, though some would teach that they (specifically Mary) did not, since they were in every respect human as we are.
So why wouldn't baby Jesus also receive a sin nature like all of us? I see it this way: neither Mary or Joseph contributed to the conception of the babe. That is, Joseph certainly wasn't the father & Mary did not contribute her ovum to this conception. The Bible says in Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
I understand this verse to say that God, by His Spirit overshadowed Mary & placed this Holy Seed (one entirely from God without human intervention) into Mary's womb. So this Seed had not the nature that is passed down through mankind - it is a pure & Holy Seed. So couldn't God just zap Jesus onto the Earth & avoid all this human involvement? Well, the Scriptures speak of this Holy One coming, Who would be the Messiah, born in humanity ( 2 Samuel 7:12,13; Isaiah 7:14; Micah 5:2), so Jesus was born in fulfilment of all Scriptures, even the Sacrifices which spoke about His redemptive work. Yet, Jesus' Birth was without a sin nature so that He could ultimately be the Perfect Spotless Sacrifice for mankind. So Jesus was tempted of Satan ( Matthew 4:1-11), not to commit sin since He had no sin nature, but Satan wanted to cause the sin nature to be a part of Jesus, just as he did to Adam & Eve. But Jesus resisted this attempt & remained pure ( Hebrews 4:15).
According to scripture, Jesus Christ would be the seed of the woman, the root of Jesse, the seed of Abraham, made like unto his brethren, the root and offspring of David.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. ( Genesis 3:15)
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ( Isaiah 7:14)
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. ( Isaiah 11:10)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. ( Hebrews 2:16-17)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. ( Revelation 22:16)
As was said of Jesus, that He would have His heritage in Eve, of Abraham, of Jesse, made like unto his brethren, the root and offspring of David, tells me that as Mary had this Divine Seed developing in her, being nourished, experiencing all the normal feelings & movements of the Babe within & even bringing Him out in the normal way, is proof sufficient that this Holy Seed brought into the world by Mary had every right & claim to the Davidic line through Mary (& Joseph).
Does then the absence of a 'bloodline' preclude Jesus being what was claimed of Him? Would it be sufficient that a wholly Divine Jesus, born through a human agent, could be included in the lineage all the way back to Adam? Or, if there was a "bloodline" through Mary, would Jesus have a sinful nature as well? Aspects worthy of some thought to Jesus' qualification not only to be wholly Divine but also to His human descendancy.
Thanks for your input Bendito. The reference to 'seed' of course does mean as you suggested, but we have to allow for a wider meaning as prescribed from the Hebrew: which is, 'zera', & this includes 'child, descendant, posterity, race, etc.', as seen in other Scriptures showing this (e.g. Genesis 12:7 & others).
So we could read as you state that the Embryo that was Jesus in Mary's womb, was of her seed coupled with the Divine, or as I believe, that she only carried God's Seed to be brought out into the world. If she supplied her seed for the Word of God to become flesh, then Jesus would have been tainted with the sinful nature of humanity as I don't believe that Mary was sinless. To say that Jesus wouldn't have been so tainted then denies the transmission of the sin nature throughout humanity. Now I know that some believe that Jesus was born with a sin nature & during His testings with Satan & throughout His earthly sojourn, He resisted Satan so that He wouldn't feed that Nature & commit sin. I don't know if you subscribe to this view, but I believe that Jesus didn't have such a nature but His testings from Satan were to instil such a nature in Him as was done to Adam & Eve.
You also state: "Else he would have not truly been the Son of Man, but another life form." I couldn't quite get my head around this one: I understand that a human being can only be one from both the male & female contributions. If one part was of the Divine & the other human, does this also constitute a human being? Or, if both parts were Divine, could a human be formed in such manner? Or seen in another way, if God could create Adam from dust & Eve from his rib, can God not produce another human only from His compilation of seed(s)?
Thank you for the detailed response. I have a better understanding of why Jesus was not sinful.
So you had referenced Heb 4:15 and I have been reviewing this passage along with Heb 7. In particular I noticed that Jesus was referenced as a High Priest through the power of a life that cannot be destroyed ( Heb 7:16). I have 2 questions:
1. Is it though this power of a life that cannot be destroyed that explains why Jesus cannot sin (or did not have a sinful nature?
2. I do not know or understand the backstory of the high priests. Specifically in Heb. 7: 15-28, what was wrong with the old system that required Jesus to be the ultimate high priest?
The Book was written to Christians who were mainly of Jewish background, hence they needed to see from the Scriptures & understand why Jesus was greater in every way being the only suitable Sacrifice for us & to not apostatize by reverting back to Judaism or Jewish thought. Therefore, the Hebrews writer (possibly, Paul), endeavours to show Christ's superiority & of Christianity.
Jesus was superior to the Prophets (1:1-4); to the Angels (1:5 - 2:18); to Moses (3:1-6); & to the Priesthood (5:1 - 10:39). To the Priesthood: Jesus did not come in the line of the priests of old (i.e. through the Levite tribe): He came through David & Judah & yet He came fulfilling the position of Priest. The Hebrews writer explains that Jesus' position exceeded the position & work of the priests: the priests had to offer sacrifices for their sins & for the people, but Jesus fulfilled the role of a High Priest from Heaven, by offering up Himself as the Sacrifice (7:27) & also presently doing a mediating Work in Heaven on our behalf (8:1).
So if Jesus had no earthly qualification to be Priest, it had to be from another. So the typology is taken from King Melchisedec who was a King & served as a priest to his people in Salem (later, Jerusalem). Since there was no record of this king's birth, family or death, Jesus is likened to such an one who served as a priest without coming from a Levitical background. So in Hebrews chap 7, 'perfection' was not realized from the earthly priests (ordained from the 'law of a carnal commandment'), but from one such as Melchisedec (by the authority of an 'endless life', a type of 'eternal existence' of the man Melchisedec).
That Jesus did not sin had nothing to do with 7:16, but that Jesus withstood Satan who determined to make Jesus fail as the eternal Saviour, giving us no further way to salvation.
Going in another direction. I am reading 1st Peter 3 and I have a questions regarding verses 20-21. Specifically, I understand that the flood and the 8 men that were saved from the flood represented water baptism, but I do not completely understand the passage of: "baptism doth also save us...but the answer of a good conscience toward God...". Can you explain this section of verse 21.
In like manner, our 'good' conscience is what is important in respect to water baptism. As Noah was saved by water, so is the believer saved by water. But Peter qualifies that: it's not the act of immersion that 'saves' us, i.e. as if water baptism washed any of our sins away - No - water baptism doesn't take away sin or even give us a new birth (the Holy Spirit does that), but the act of baptism is for the sake of our conscience. We might rejoice when we first come to know Christ & experience His new birth in us. We might go on confidently in what has taken place in our lives, even share this with others. But Satan isn't far away to make us falter & doubt whether what has happened is of God or from our own desires. Especially when we fall into sin, it's so easy to start wondering about our salvation & we might even become spiritually weak because of it.
So Peter is saying that even though water baptism doesn't save us or clean us of our sin, what it does do, is to give us a physical testimony to others & ourselves, that God has performed a special work in us: that we are now testifying publicly to it & that this act will be a testimony to Satan whenever he taunts us with doubt & fear. So it just helps to keep us in focus, just as partaking at the Lord's Table does, when we remember Christ's death for us. So baptism comes first as we identify with Christ's death & resurrection into new Life & is a witness to all: ourselves & to the evil around us.
You mentioned that we need to be fully clear & fully convinced in our hearts in what we believe. So what do you mean (or can you explain) the idea of "in our heart". I do not know what "Heart" means in terms of how the bible describes. I only really understand the heart as the physical muscle in the body. Otherwise the terminology of the heart is vague to me in the same sense that love and other words are just that...words but without a truly defined meaning. So would gladly appreciate what this means. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
The Bible is replete with references to the 'heart': Genesis 6:5,6; Genesis 17:17; Genesis 45:26; Jeremiah 17:9 are just a few examples of the ways that 'heart' is used in the Bible. So when I wrote, "fully convinced in our hearts", my thoughts were on the combination of our mental & emotional aspects, whereby we must firmly believe in mind & display of emotional strength, as we stand against any that should come against us.
As a sideline, the Bible also uses the word 'bowels'. This can refer to our bodily insides ( Genesis 15:4) but also refer to what we denote to the heart, except using the older English expression. So we have Genesis 43:30, Philemon 1:7 as a couple of examples of that. I trust you can see the use of the word 'heart' (& bowels) in Scripture.
Hi, I am working on Growth Journals and Lesson 5 addresses Discovering the Attributes of God. I am stuck on a question regarding Rev. 22:17. Specifically, why does God give us a choice, since He is soverign (rules over everything)?
But "why does God give us a choice since He is Sovereign?" Man has always had the power to choose, usually unwisely (I think of the first bad choice made by Adam & Eve). But when it comes to receiving salvation, even though God already knows our response to the Gospel & His Spirit's call (tug) on our hearts, the invitation is always there, because a response is required. If the Gospel is to be preached for a sinner to be saved, that sinner must first sense the Spirit's conviction of that sin & that either produces true repentance or a disregard to it. If that person is appointed to eternal life (according to God's foreknowledge of that person), that conviction in him, must produce something, or else he is merely a machine (robot). We are humans that involuntarily respond to all kinds of situations; & to sin's conviction, we cry out to God for forgiveness & when God sees that torn, wretched soul seeking its hope only in Christ, salvation is granted & permanent. Yes, God is sovereign but He requires our response to His invitation ( Rev 22:17).
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?