The following is another question posed by someone in our church from the last Grace-Talk session in Sept. that we were unable to discuss.
Question:
Explain the concept of “federalism” – in that Adam and Eve were our “representatives” in the garden? How is it that we are justly born with original sin – I know this is a bold question to ask but I want to better understand the justice in this. Thank you.
This is a great question that deserves a solid answer. Why is it that God passes down Adam and Eve’s sin to us? Where else in society do I have to live out the consequences of another person’s actions? A more cynical approach could be to say, “Isn’t this just the way religion seeks to control the lives of people and drive them to give to the church?” There are bunches of people who think guilt is the primary offering that the church gives to society through teaching like this. Then, the church, seeks to promote itself of being able to fill the void that this teaching has created with religion.
What say you?
I’ll take a shot. Let the Heresy begin.
Being responsible for something done by representative happens all the time. I am responsible for work my boss accepts. When i was a child i moved when my Dad got a job. We live in America under a representative government, so every law those jokers pass i have to live under etc.
I think God, being Omniscient; Omnipresent; and Omnipotent, could have put together the combination of each of us in the garden and we all failed. Each of would have given into temptation, stopped trusting God for everything and introduced sin into the world. So God choose Adam to be our first father, knowing what would happen and knowing that each of us would make the same decision. God knew the tendency of our heart and that is what he judges.
To those that say the church offers sin as a way to get money from us is crazy. Do you feel better about sin? Ever? If confession and money worked to free us from the guilt associated with sin, psychology would be much more successful. It is the relationship with Jesus that allows us to feel unburdened by sin, not the church, not confession to a priest, and not giving money.
The problem is sin and the answer is Jesus.
I think there are really two questions here. One is ‘why?’ which I think is simply answered ‘because that’s the way a sovereign God set things up’. As O’Ryan said, God chose Adam as our representative, that was His design.
The other implied question is, ‘is this just?’ Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology comments on this from several angles. However, I think the best one is if we claim that justice demands that God not hold us responsible for Adam’s sin we must also claim that a just God cannot consider me righteous because of Christ’s obedience. In other words if we object to the imputed sin of Adam we must also object to the imputed righteousness of Christ.
If sin is imputed to us because Adam is the head then why does this imputation occur when there was no law between Adam and Moses? Without law there is no imputed penalty.
I believe that our sin nature is imputed through the seed of Adam (man)in much the same way as our DNA is passed to our offspring. This “corrupt DNA” did not occur in Christ through the supernatural conception of Mary with God’s perfect seed. While Mary was a sinner (possessing a sin nature in her flesh), her sin nature did not have an influence on Christ since she didn’t possess seed of the male.
Why is there no law between Adam and Moses?
Adam’s sin was not the transgression of the Mosaic Law but disobedience to God’s instruction in the Garden. God set the penalty for this transgression at death. Death entered the world for the first time through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). The fact that this penalty is passed to us all (we all die physically) is another indication that we’re all guilty in Adam. From the moment of birth we begin to die, not because at 1 hour old we’ve commited some sin but because from the beginning of our life we’re guilty in Adam.
Just to clarify, the seminal transmission view that John is expressing holds that we are born just as spiritually dead and guilty as the Federal Headship view holds. It just sees a different explanation. Instead of Adam being our legal representative, as his offspring, we were really there in the garden with him in seed form (‘in his loins’ to use Biblical language).
It goes something like this… Adam and Eve are fallen, guilty creatures. Each creature reproduces after its own kind. Adam and Eve produce fallen, guilty children. And so on, and so on.
The two are really not in conflict are they? We are legally guilty because of the imputation of Adam’s sin and we are actually guilty because of our own transgressions which are the result of the inheritance of Adam’s fallen nature. Or am I thinking about it wrong?
As I understand it, both views hold that we are guilty of Adam’s sin at conception and, additionally, our own sin from that point on. Both fit within a reformed view of original sin and depravity. Alternatively, an Arminian view would say that we are only guilt of our own sin (but because we are fallen we all sin).
In my view this is a somewhat academic topic (I don’t mean unimportant or not worth discussing) because under all of the views, we are guilty of our own sin, and that is more than enough to find ourselves under God’s wrath.
It is my view that this is what we will answer for if we do not have an Advocate pleading our case for us on judgement day. Serpents and apples would be the least of our concerns on that day.
Does anyone have any bible verses for imputation vs seminal transmission? How about verses for calivin vs arminianism?
Hey O’Ryan, thanks for asking the question that’s on everybody’s mind but was probably afraid to ask.
I confess I’m in the dark Scripturally on imputation (the “Federal” view) vs. the seminal transmission view.
Now, Calvinism vs. Arminianism… asking for Bible verses on that subject is kind of like going to a Georgia-Florida game and asking if anybody can prove their team is better. 😉
Seriously… one caution: it’s always dangerous to just ask for Bible verses. Even Satan can cite Scripture for his purposes. There’s a nasty habit that’s very easy to fall into when it comes to these sorts of debates — “prooftexting,” or simply saying, “here’s a verse, I rest my case.” The standard needs to be the truth communicated by Scripture, not just the English-translation words of somebody’s “pet verse”… it takes work to dig it out.
For starters on the Calvinist/Arminian debate, I’ll offer Ephesians 1-2 as a good starting point on the Calvinist side of things.
Yikes. Dan might want to move this to a separate blog — I sense a great disturbance in the Force…
Thanks Hugh,
I agree those blogs awhile back were exhausting. I find the debate between Arminianism vs Calvinism boring anyway. It seems to usually boil down to “God does neat things and I don’t get how.” Another way to reign in the debate would be to argue from OT, or Books of law, or Psalms, etc. Just a thought.
How about Seminal vs imputation? An interesting set of verses I fount was Ezekiel 18:2-20. Especially v. 20 looks to me like the verses talk about the sins of the father are not passed to the son. But could this verse be used to argue against seminal imputation, or is it simply talking about the sins committed in the flesh. Could it mean we are not responsible for Adams sin but are born into a world cursed by our sinful existence.
O’Ryan, I think you make a good point. In fact passages such as the one you cite are sometimes used to argue against the seminal point of view. The issue it seems is are we guilty of EVERY sin Adam committed (which it seems to me would need to be the case in the seminal view) or is the guilt imputed to us only for the original sin of disobedience? My opinion is its only the original sin of disobedience, not all Adam’s subsequent sins. Looking at it another way, we were all seminally present in Noah as well since all humanity secondarily comes from him, are we also guilty of his sins? This would seem to be a legitmate question for the seminal point of view. What do you guys think? I know as Eric said its somewhat academic but its an interesting discussion nonetheless. 🙂
Though the issue of the extent of what is passed through by being in Adam (seminally) there is at least one passage which seems to say that there is some validity to the position – Hebrews 7:9-10. In this passage the Levitical priesthood is shown to be inferior to the order of Melchizadek because Levi was in Abraham’s loins when Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizadek. This seems to be saying that even though Levi was not born he was taking part in the actions of his father – which would apply quite well to the issue of us being in Adam when he sinned and fell.
This seems to be one of those things that I will not fully understand in this life and just accept that.
I will steer clear of the “fluids” issue.
However with that said, I think I can make this very simple in our simple minds.
If we live a perfect sinless life from birth like Christ did you will not need the payment Christ made….right?
Just that simple, but obviously not possible because of that pesky sin nature.
Just one sin is all it takes for all have sinned, and all WILL sin.
Just a one paragraph answer from me. Are you all proud of me? 😉
How do we explain the death of a soul born at conception but not physically born (miscarriage or abortion). Clearly, they have suffered physical death (i.e. fallen under the original curse) and yet haven’t taken a breath, let alone sinned.
What just cause could there be for their physical death than for them to be declared guilty by way of the imputation of guilt for Adam’s sin.
Also, lest we are guilty, we wouldn’t need Christ. In this regard, the imputing of Adam’s guilt to every last one of us upon conception is an act of love in that it invites us into faith in the ultimate show thereof.
Hey Matt, I agree that the Hebrews passage would support the seminal view (which I tend to favor), but isn’t that view liable to the claim that Larry mentioned? That being, that we would each be liable for all sins committed by all or our ancestors.
To answer O’Ryan’s request for Scriptural support, we need to start with Romans 5:13-21, which is the passage that each view is attempting to explain. One has to take a few minutes an read that section before considering anything in this discussion.
I really like the seminal view because (it seems to me) it would explain so much if it holds up under scrutiny.
Here’s an analogy, but I don’t know how valid it is: imagine a woman who smokes crack while pregnant. The baby is born addicted to crack, even though the baby did no wrong. The addiction is transmitted from parent to child, even though the child did nothing to bring it on himself.
Or consider a father with hemophilia. He fathers a child who is also a hemophiliac. The genetic defect is transmitted from parent to child.
The idea I’m wondering about is this: does the seminal view provide a basis for some sort of “spiritual inheritance?” In other words, do we inherit spiritual traits from our parents just like we inherit physical traits from our parents?
Just wondering.
Wait, both the seminal and the federal views hold that we don’t even have to commit one sin to be born sinful. Whether or not we are born able to not sin is outside the scope of this discussion, since both views assume this point (that we are born “dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2)). Focus…
Jeffrey — granted; hence the “academic” discussion. I think the question of “Why Am I Responsible…” has turned into “How Is It That I Am Responsible For Adam’s Sin?”
Maybe at this point it’s all just angels dancing on the head of a pin, but alas, it’s too late now — we took the red pill. 😉 Might as well see how deep this rabbit hole goes…
Hey C.A., nice paragraph. Just wanted to point out that our view of “sin” is usually pretty limited. Check out a previous guiroo blog on the topic.
Thanks for responding Dave as the rest here seem to have admittedly taken the red pill or red kool-aid. 😉
Interesting take on your blog, but I would have to ask you to explain your comment about sin not being just an action but at “the core of our being”.
Sin is what we do physically or mentally against God right?
Are you saying if we were somehow able to live a perfect and sinless life since birth that would not be enough? Interesting thought.
We have a sin nature passed down from Adam and it is impossible for us not to sin, but this would be similar to the scripture about the sins of the father passing on to other generations as our sin nature is passed from Adam.
Is it also not accurate to say that God created Adam perfect and capable of being perfect and sinless from his creation? He and Eve chose to sin right? But we are not created “perfect” as Adam was or we would also be capable of living a sinless life. Mmmmmmmmm.
I am sure there is some cult of sect that believes this is possible here and now. 😉
So in a nutshell without any great “interlectural” prowess (President Bush reference) we are paying for Adam’s sin.
A similar topic that would be just as timely for the ladies (Donna should have her own women’s issues blog IMO) is “Why am I responsible for having to go through such painful childbirth because of Eve”? Similar in some ways and an interesting parallel to this blog.
Goodnight and thanks again. Again…no Kool-Aid for me.
It isn’t the act of sin we are discussing here, but the guilt we carry. We are guilty from conception unto the inevitability of additional guilt given the opportunity.
I just happened to be browsing through this website when I noticed this blog. I just wanted to respond to a comment left above: “A similar topic that would be just as timely for the ladies (Donna should have her own women’s issues blog IMO) is ‘Why am I responsible for having to go through such painful childbirth because of Eve’?” This seems to imply that the discussion of theological matters — the nature of sin in this case — is not a “women’s issue.” To limit the part of women in this discussion to a contemplation of the pains of childbirth would be a shame.
Anonymous, I for one would love to see more women engage on theological issues–in this forum and others.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m just pondering the condition in which we are born. We tend to think of sin as “lying, stealing, lusting, killing.” So a new father is standing in the delivery room holding his new child. That child hasn’t ever lied, stolen, lusted or killed right? So it’s a sinless, perfect little baby right? I would have to say no. As we learn in the OT, sin isn’t so much about the action, it’s about where your faith and trust is. (King David killed many in obedience to God.)
But that baby doesn’t measure up to the glory of God and is only concerned about and motivated by one thing … self. Who knows what child birth would have been like before the fall but now we are born into a situation where we have no choice but to be sinful right from the get go. Unlike Adam and Eve, we don’t get the chance to stop trusting God from our beginning.
Dave-
It seems that you are trying to distinguish between the twofold nature of our falleness (which is a good thing). The first part of our falleness has to do with our very nature-it is dead, full or guilt, and is not capable of the hypothetical life of “good choices.” David seems to say as much in Psalm 51 where he states that “…in sin did my mother conceive me.” We are sinful by nature-even my 11 day old son, Ezra, who has committed no sinful acts, stands guilty before our holy God becuase of the sin nature that is imputed or given him because of Adam’s guilt.
The other part of our falleness is the actual sinful acts that we committ. Not only are we sinners by nature, but we fulfill that “destiny” by carrying out the sinful lusts of our nature every day by lying, lusting, not loving the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind, etc.
It is only when we see the utter depravity of who we are and that we stand GUILTY on all accounts in front the holy and righteous Judge of the Universe that we can see how incredible His grace and mercy are. That is why looking at sin and its effect on us is so important-it enables us to see our God in a much grander and awesome scale. Prais Him for his forgivness and mercy!!
A sinful nature or a propensity toward sin isn’t sin and doesn’t condemn. Guilt does.
Well stated Pat!
For the Anonymous blogger all I can say is that 99.99999% of the entries and 100% of the forum leaders on this site are men. Unfortunate but true. Men are better computer nerds anyway and I figure you would find similar stats for the blogosphere in general.
Now back on topic….
Obviously our sin nature and state from birth are equal for both men and women. For all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Because we are all men here, most opinions are naturally from the male perspective.
There are also many times we discuss very manly issues. Other than the really long blogs recently on homosexuality. 😉
Adam and Eve disobeying God in the garden earned them a threefold punishment if you will. One for all mankind, and one for each gender. Obviously the most important was eternal separation from God, and Christ was the only possible solution to save us all. God bruised the serpent’s head by the seed of a women who was our savior Jesus.
Few seem to discuss the other two punishments/curses from God that came from this same sinful act of disobedience. Eve was cursed and all women were to follow with pain in childbirth, and all men were cursed to work/toil the earth/ground. This seems to be a curse for each gender that there is no solution or resolution to this very day that I can see. I am not hearing about women being born again and never needing an epidural after that. Or any men trusting Christ and then immediately winning the lottery so they never have to work again.
These are possible spin-offs for another couple of blogs, but are two subjects that I don’t ever hear debated or discussed anywhere. Anyone game to take this one on?
I just thought it was an interesting subject and a great segway that could spark some great discussion with a GF women’s blog. That’s all.
Thanks for coming to my defense Eric! Would love to see Donna out here if she was interested, and I might even poke Mary with a gentle stick to log in and check it out once in a while. 😉
C.A. Nix III
My sister is a computer guru making $350K per year. Shame on you.
“Few seem to discuss the other two punishments/curses from God that came from this same sinful act of disobedience.”
Dan discussed it this summer in the Ephesians series. I just refered to it as friend of mine was expressing frustration over the Bible’s non-PC view of marriage.
As for the demographic of the GraceBlog participants, there is no limitation on who is allowed to participate.
C.A. said: “Men are better computer nerds anyway…”
Ladies, I would ask him if that was stated as a fact or a challenge. 😕
“Dan discussed it this summer in the Ephesians series. I just referred to it as friend of mine was expressing frustration over the Bible’s non-PC view of marriage.”
Cool! I don’t remember this discussed in great detail anywhere, (GF or anywhere else)and might have missed that Sunday.
You and Dan are of the “few” that I spoke about then. 😉
Obviously ladies are free to join in and surely are welcome but you must admit that is very very rare here.
Blog discussion of why the pain in childbirth and “monthly” issues from a Biblical and female perspective would be some fascinating reading. It might even stop me from typing and maybe try to just read a little more on here.
You all can hope anyway. 😉
I hate to post a comment off the original topic, but on behalf of women, I wanted to respond to the last comment. First, perhaps the reason that there are not many women posting comments is not because they feel that the topics are irrelevant but rather that they prefer to interact in a more personal manner. When it comes to online communication, it is all too easy to misinterpret tone and meaning and to take offense to comments that may not have been intended to offend, and such misunderstandings can be especially harmful to women’s relationships with others. Second, upon a brief inspection of past blog topics, it seems that overall there is, in fact, only a handful of men consistently involved in the discussions. Maybe a blog should be started that deals with men’s issues similar in substance and relevance to the women’s discussion of “’monthly’ issues.” I don’t know how appropriate or edifying either hypothetical blog would be in such a forum, and I don’t know that it would necessarily incline any more women or men to join in. And P.S. — There are plenty of female computer nerds out there—-we just tend to hide it better. 🙂
Anonymous Comment #29, thanks for addressing the change of topic — blog etiquette is always appreciated, as is your input. As a member of the web team at Grace, I am interested in how to engage more of the GF body in online discussion. Not for numbers sake, but to promote growth by thinking about what we say we believe but tend to gloss over as assumption (which may happen to involve being challenged to substantiate that idea) and encourage community within the body. (I don’t ever see Larry during the week, or even on Sundays, but I have gotten to know him better here.)
Perhaps. Maybe the main demographic of women at GF have time to meet during the day or throughout the week. Maybe a formal survey is in line but, as they currently are, do you see the blogs as adding value to the teaching on Sundays or challenging you in your personal growth? Is there a value or benefit that you think the blogs could address but currently aren’t?
I would not generalize this to gender/sex — as if offense is not harmful to men’s relationships — but to our American culture’s inability to discuss ideas without internalizing them on a personal level. If someone rejects our ideas then we tend to feel personally rejected. Oz Guinness, C.S. Lewis, and Tolkien have all addressed this. Lewis and Tolkien were able to disagree as they discussed very personal ideas/creations/artwork over a few pints* but still remained friends and held a very strong mutual respect for each other.
Your statement communicates that the medium itself makes it risky to engage in discussion. I wonder how much of people’s concern is about the inherent nature of the medium and how much is about the possibility of being engaged, possibly even challenged?
One of GF’s goals is to be a safe environment to ask questions and engage in discussion — I wonder how “safe” the blogs are REALLY considered. I don’t mean this as an insult but as an observation, maybe not even safe enough to associate one’s name with their ideas? It could just be a personal conviction about online security, but if it’s not, please accept our apologies as it isn’t anyone’s intention to engage in personal attack.
Exactly, I would love to have more of the body involved but the question is, “Why aren’t more people joining in now?” Is it life pattern? Issues of safety? Lack of confidence in one’s ability to communicate in two or three written paragraphs? The blogs and/or comments add no value? No issues, just prefer to lurk? General lack of awareness/advertising?
Based on the answers to those questions we can know how to focus our efforts to use the web to edify (encourage and challenge) the body and spread the fame of God on a global level. It’s easy to think of it as banter between a handful of men, but it’s all Google-able.
Again, thanks for your input and willingness to speak up. I hope that we can make the Grace Blogs a blessing to you and others.
*If it’s a cultural issue, maybe we should adopt the Southern Baptist Convention’s approach to “pints” and say that discussing ideas is too much of a social risk, and therefore unbiblical, so we should ban it altogether. Sorry, just pickin’ on the ideas held by the SBC. 😉
Even though I don’t think I have ever posted on this blog I have learned so much reading the comments made by you “guys”. I barely can sneak away and read the blogs, sitting long enough to type a post seems impossible. In the five minutes I have been sitting here one child spilled orange juice, another is running through the house with a noisy toy, a third is changing songs on the i-pod (instead of doing schoolwork), the 4th is dancing to the new song, and the 5th just woke up. This is reason this woman doesn’t post.
Thanks guys (and girls) for sharing all of your wisdom and insight with all of us!
Back to the important off subject…subject…
I have stated in the past that the brain power given off by many of the men at GF on these blogs makes me want to sometimes tape my head with duct tape to keep my head from exploding. This is very intimidating to me and I am sure it is to others as I am closer to the intellectual prowess of George W. Bush and most on here are closer to the intellectual prowess of George Will. 😉
GF is blessed with so many godly men and women that are very very smart and I am sure have a very high IQ. With that comes very deep theological thought and very big words. You know who you are and never ever change! We need to smart guys to keep us in line.
Still I long for some simpler discussions from time to time where everyone can get involved and not feel stupid when a point is made with words from the “common folk”.
The recent über-blog on Homosexuality and parenting was one of the greatest ever for me personally as we went all over the spectrum from the intellectual to emotional to the practical.
Anon was right that there are only about 5 regulars and I am a semi-regular at best. However I am also generally the most longwinded and trying hard to keep things to a nutshell going forward.
This forum should never be a replacement for genuine fellowship with the body or one on one discipleship. However it is a great source as a weekly supplement and learning tool. To make us think. We need to be more transparent with each other anyway and be willing to express opinions that might not be popular while knowing that we will not be buried for expressing them.
Promoting the blogs at GF on Sunday would be nice. Having a women’s issues forum, men’s issues forum, and simple issues of the day forum with items in the news would be nice to discuss from a spiritual perspective.
This takes time and commitment from ones choosing to moderate these forums. Dan, Eric and Ken…..I salute you for making this forum possible and giving us great topics to think about as the most regular contributors.
Dave I salute you for keeping things running here and for being the official Hezbollah representative on this blog.
There’s my opinion for the day. I am shy aren’t I. 😉
Sing with me now… “They will know we are Christians by our intellect…?”
I’m pretty sure I’m not likely to be charged with fostering anti-intellectualism, so let me observe something without fear of being misunderstood:
We may have people ’round these parts who sound pretty smart. We may even have a few people who are pretty smart, and that’s great. In the end, intellectual prowess, IQ, a big library, a big vocabulary, sophisticated philosophy, and impressive smarts count for nothing.
Love’s the thing.
— 1 Corinthians 13:1-2
The challenge remains to develop the gifts we’ve been given — whatever they are — and deploy them for the spread of God’s fame and the advancement of his kingdom.
Some of us have been given the grace of being able to put ideas about the things of God into words for his glory. For my part, I pray for greater grace to put my ideas about the things of God into action for his glory.
The words are worthwhile, but they only go so far…
Right on the money Hugh! Love for Christ, each other, and the lost world is the bottom line.
John 13:35 NIV “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
As far as the discussions here, at GF on Sunday, and life in general, the fact is people are at different places and at different levels of maturity and intellect.
Having a couple of options for those different types people to get involved in some discussions here would be nice, and surely would get more people involved here.
Men and women, spiritually mature and those new or struggling, really smart people and then those like me.
We are all different parts of one Body. A one size fits all approach to theological, spiritual, biblical, or issues of the day here on this site will only attract a certain type of person. In this case about 5 people that are all leaders at GF in one form or another.
Not trying to promote any Anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions here. Not dumbed down Christianity either. Just options for some simpler discussions based on the teaching or other topics. Did you like my $64 words in this paragraph? 😉
Deep and important issues can always be discussed on a simpler level sometimes.
This is a great tool for the Body at GF. It would be nice to see more than the regular 5 people and some women too. That’s all.
Humbly submitted for your comments.
It is our guilt for Adam’s sin and our own sins which is imputed to Christ, not our actual sins.
Not only is guilt of Adam’s sin imputed to us and Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us, but guilt for Adam’s sin, our own sins, and all the sins of the world which Jesus paid the penalty for on the Cross. Hence His question to God, “Father, why have you forsaken me?”
To clarify…Guilt for all the sins of the world was imputed to Christ at the Cross.
I would like to discuss the following:
The difference between justification in the sight of God and Justification in the sight of men (1 Sam 16:7; Rom 4:1-5; Jas 2:21-25).
The difference in purpose and effect between faith alone (Eph 2:8-9) and faith ‘in action’ (Eph 2:10).
The difference in purpose and effect between justification in the sight of God and sanctification in the sight of Men.
The difference between the futile pursuit of self-righteousness and the imputing of Christ’s righteousness.
Thanks.
As well, I’d like to discuss the difference between “living in the Spirit” and “walking in the spirit” verses “being under the Law”.
The reason this is important to me is that our misunderstanding of these terms has as divided as a Church and many of us, including Church leaders falling from grace.
Which brings up another question. What does falling from grace mean?
My thinking is, you can’t fall off the top of a mountain until you are there. And since ‘once saved, always saved’, you can’t lose your salvation.
Tom, given this blog post and subsequent discussion was from 2006, you may or may not get many “bites” on the questions you are asking/inquiries you are making. Certainly, someone might join in, but I wanted to set your expectations.
It might be more advantageous for you to attend our church in order to get clarification on these kinds of issues. Regardless, we hope the best for you.
So, falling from grace doesn’t equate with losing your salvation but with conflating faith with works for salvation.
Hey Dan,
I am a member of Cottonwood Church in Allen, TX.
I was researching the topics I brought to bare in response to this blog, and am glad we connected. How do we start a new discussion on these matters for our mutual edification?
I am not sure given our distance and not sure how guys might want to interact.
@Dan and @Tom: How about on Facebook? It’s what killed the interaction on the blogs. 🙂
Our page is: @forGodsfame
As such, those who misunderstand and mis-teach the comparable meaning of the aforementioned terms also conflate the order and relation of faith and works for salvation vs in response to having first been saved, leading all within our sphere of influence astray from the Gospel, a concern Paul addresses extensively.
Confusing the traditions of men with the traditions of Jesus Christ or the revelation of Jesus Christ is another of the terms that leads folks astray to a works-based believe system.