Conversion: Trusting God’s Word for Your Regeneration and Resurrection

We must trust Christ to raise us from death to life. We must trust him for this twice: regarding our resurrection, and regarding our regeneration.

These two cases are alike. In both cases, we are dead, and because we are dead, we cannot raise ourselves. In the case of resurrection, God must raise us from bodily death to bodily life. In the case of regeneration, God must raise us from spiritual death to spiritual life. In both cases, we must cling to the Word alone, believing God’s promise against any attack on our faith.

Most Christians are clear on the necessity of trusting God’s promise of physical resurrection. Something about bodily death makes it obvious that we cannot raise ourselves to life. Maybe funerals give us closure, convincing us that our loved one really is dead.

Clarity is not as abounding concerning regeneration, however. Christendom is infiltrated with notions that once the grace of God is offered, “then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, …, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.” (Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article II, para. 11)

We are prone to the notion that in the spiritual realm, dead does not mean dead. We haven’t attended the funeral for our spiritual death. We haven’t been to our old Adam’s graveside service.

We are hung up in the Devil’s lie to Adam and Eve. He said they wouldn’t surely die. As descendants of Adam, following in his sin, we are susceptible to viewing the spiritual death that Adam suffered immediately in the fall as figurative death.

God said, “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) Eve did not echo that word accurately. She did not say, “You shall surely die.” She said, “lest you die.’” Today’s translations do not bring fully to light what she said in the word “lest.” That word speaks of peradventure. Her meaning would be expressed more clearly as, “You shall not eat it, perchance you might die.” Maybe, perhaps, possibly, conceivably, feasibly, imaginably, you might die.

That movement from faith to unbelief in the Word was an opening for the Devil. After Eve said lest, perchance, or peradventure we die, then he brashly declared, “You will not surely die.” (Genesis 3:4)

Luther says:

She does not mention the punishment as God had stated it. He had simply stated (Gen. 2:17): “On whatever day you will eat from it, you will surely die.” Out of this absolute statement she herself makes one that is not absolute when she adds: “Lest perchance we shall die.”

This is a striking flaw, and one that must not be overlooked; for it shows that she has turned from faith to unbelief. For just as a promise demands faith, so a threat also demands faith. … On her own she is adding to God’s Word the little word “perchance.” And so the deceit of the lying spirit met with success. What he sought to achieve above all – to lead Eve away from the Word and faith – this he has now achieved to the extent that Eve distorts the Word of God.

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis in Luther’s Works, vol. 1, p.155 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958).

Johann Gerhard expresses the same thing this way.

On her own she added “perchance,” as if it were uncertain that they would die if they had eaten of it, though God nevertheless had expressed His will openly and clearly [Gen 2:17]. She also adds on her own that the tree was indeed not even to be touched. …

Afterward, on the basis of the answer of Eve, who did not correctly recount God’s prohibition, the devil becomes more bold and completely denies the Word of God.

Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces: On Original Sin, On Actual Sins, On Free Choice, pp. 7, 15 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014).

Adam is thoroughly involved with Eve in this. He is responsible for it. He stood idly by and watched his wife die without parting his lips to speak the words of life to her. Eve gave a distorted echo of the Word, but Adam gave no echo at all.

Death already had happened. It happened at the instant of unbelief. Pride, lust, envy, and other sins result from unbelief and do not cause death but are only descriptions of death. Those other sins delineate what comes of unbelief. Before regeneration, we are walking dead, not because we are doomed to die in the future, but because we are dead already before we walk.

Unbelief is death. Death in and of itself cannot believe. Unbelief can only die and die and die.

The notion of synergism – the idea that some will, reason, or power in unregenerate man can cooperate with the power of God to convert us to Christ – is not simply a mistake. It is an absurdity that death would raise itself to life. Whoever preaches synergism to you, while appealing to your ego about some power you supposedly have, is doing you no favors. That preaching, if believed, works a cruel entombment of the mind in dead thinking.

In the thoughts of our sinful nature, we follow Adam in a related distortion of the Word. God said, “in the day you eat of it,” you shall surely die. Adam and Eve did die in that day. Sin and death passed to all men from Adam. We confess this, saying that while they did not die bodily, they did die spiritually in the Garden. But in our sinful nature, there is a problem with how we confess it. By “spiritually,” we don’t mean what we should, that in the spiritual realm, Adam and Eve died literally. We use the word “spiritually” as if it were a word like figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically, or symbolically. This leaves wiggle room to claim some feeble power of ourselves, some little spark of life that survived Adam’s fall into sin, by which we can make a decision for Christ.

The picture we should have of ourselves before regeneration is ourselves in graves. Dead. Spiritually literally dead. Our prospects then were like our prospects for bodily resurrection from our graves. In regeneration, we must trust Christ to raise us from the dead – trust that He has raised us from the dead – the same way we trust that in the resurrection Christ will raise our bodies from the dead.

The way you bank on your bodily resurrection because you heard a Word from God promising it to you is how you must bank on your being spiritually born again. You have heard a word from God, “Baptism now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21) You have heard a Word from God, “He saved us … by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5) You have heard a Word from God, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4) You have heard a Word from God,

Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses … God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. (Colossians 2:12-13)

Learn to echo these words exactly, soundly, just as you have them in your Bible. This is the sword of the Spirit by which the Spirit defends you against the monster of uncertainty, against attacks on your assurance of salvation.

Jesus is our pioneer in this. Just as we heard the word of adoption as sons in our baptisms, in his baptism, the Only Begotten Son heard this Word, “You are my beloved Son.” Immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. The Devil said, “If you are the Son.” Jesus had just heard at his baptism, “You are my Son.” Connect these dots. “You are my Beloved Son” “If you are the Son.” This is an attack on the Word. Jesus overcame by clinging to the Word. He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”

The Word of the Father claiming Jesus as his Son in Baptism comes to us as adopted sons.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. (Acts 2:38-39)

Our conversion happens the way Jesus brought Lazarus from the dead. After having spoken to them figuratively, saying that Lazarus was asleep (John 11:11), “Jesus said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead.’” (John 11:14) That was plain death, not figurative death. Then,

He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. (John 11:43-44)

This is a picture of the saints in their bodily death and burial, awaiting the hope of the resurrection of their bodies. But it is also a picture of the sinner before regeneration: dead, buried, bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and face wrapped with a cloth. It is a picture of resurrection, and it is a picture of regeneration, both of which Jesus does by his Word.

Here is how you were converted and saved: “Lazarus, come forth.” You did nothing. The Word of God did everything.

After Jesus cried, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me,” He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’” (Luke 23:46) Clinging to the Word, “You are my Beloved Son,” He confessed, “Father.” He confessed this against the monstrous attacks upon his faith in his crucifixion. This is faith, that for his assurance, Jesus had the Word and the Word only. This is the way for you.

The monster of uncertainty exists only because we look in some small way to ourselves for our conversion, and we cannot be certain of even that little bit in ourselves. We can be certain of the Word. Be his disciple. Dear one, cling to the Word.

________________________

See also:

Conversion: To See Decisions Dead People Make, Visit the
Cemetery

A Simple Map of Conversion Terminology

The Will in Conversion: Protestant Rationalism versus
Lutheran Adherence to Scripture

Image attribution:

JESUS MAFA. Jesus raises Lazarus to life, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=48269 [retrieved December 10, 2016].

About T. R. Halvorson

T. R. Halvorson was born in Sidney, Montana on July 14, 1953, baptized at Pella Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sidney, Montana on November 8, 1953, and confirmed at First Lutheran Church in Williston, North Dakota in 1968. He and his wife, Marilyn, are members of Trinity Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Sidney, Montana. They have three sons and six grandchildren. T. R. farms at Wildrose, North Dakota, and is Deputy County Attorney in Sidney, Montana. He has been a computer programmer; and an author, conference speaker, instructor, and consultant to industry in online legal information. He is among the authors of the religion column in the Sidney Herald at Sidney, Montana. He is the Editor of LutheranCatechism.com.


Comments

Conversion: Trusting God’s Word for Your Regeneration and Resurrection — 24 Comments

  1. Dear Mr. Halvorson:
    Any words beside “thank you” would detract from the truth and beauty of what you have written.
    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  2. Don’t blame Adam for this, he was not cursed with responsibility for Eve until verse 16. Adam knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that he would die. He chose to die with his wife.

  3. @Ben #2

    So, then, you believe that the responsibility of a husband for his wife is a curse, rather than an office?

    Since the marriage of Christ and the Church precedes creation, and the marriage of Adam and Eve along with every other marriage are after the pattern of Christ and the Church, is it a curse for Christ that He is Bridegroom of the Church and responsible for her?

  4. Responsible for her … sin? No. People rewrite genesis so make Eve’s sin into Adam’s. God does not – he sees what she did and appoints a guardian for her. They were both free to make their own choices.

    You can see that this transcends man and wife when it is spelled out in Numbers 30:

    If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

    If a woman vows a vow to the Lord and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house in her youth, 4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. 5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the Lord will forgive her, because her father opposed her.

    Marriage was designed for a sinless man and woman. A woman somewhat described in Proverbs 31.

    “The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.
    12 She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life. ”

    Is having to deal with your wife’s sin part of the curse of sin? Of course. Do I trust my wife unconditionally? Nope. Does she only do good and never harm? Absolutely not.

    Did Christ have to deal with our sin? Yup. Was he forsaken by god? Sure was. Did the father punish him? You betcha. For every sin we’ve ever done.

    It even fits the dictionary definition of curse.
    “a supernatural power to inflict harm or punishment on someone”

    From Isiah 53:

    “Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
    yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.”

    “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
    he has put him to grief”

    In “Has American Christianity Failed” the author describes it this way:

    “Jesus, says Isaiah, was “smitten by God.” It was not the Roman hammer and nail and whip that struck the worse blow, but the very hand of God.”

    The Christ and the Church relation works perfectly. None of it was at creation because it is all post fall and designed to deal with sin.

    I could ramble for a long time, but yes the bottom line is that having to “rule over” your wife is punishment (post fall). Leading and instructing an obedient wife who is submissive to you in everything is not punishment, it is the office of husband (pre fall).

  5. @Ben #2
    @Ben #4

    Um, no. Adam was BLESSED to lead and care for his wife Eve, from the very, very beginning, even before the Fall.

    And yes, it IS Adam’s fault. According to the sequence of events in Genesis 2, God tells Adam to eat anything (v. 16) but do not eat the forbidden fruit (v. 17). THEN in v. 18 man is alone, and God will make a helper in vv.21-22. Adam even named her woman, just like has named all the other creatures. Adam was given [care, responsibility, authority, pick your adjective] over Eve.

    Now we get into chapter 3. But noticing the timeline of chapter 2, who told Eve about the bad tree? We know God explicitly told Adam, but then did God use MEANS? God told Adam, and Adam telling Eve could/should be just as good. (the movie “A Few Good Men” has a scene about how orders carry full authority down the chain of command, regardless of who you heard the order from)

    Many translation record Adam being WITH HER when Eve was tempted. He saw, knew better, and did nothing. But let’s say he wasn’t a witness. (possible neglect/abandonment?) When Eve gave him the fruit, did he not recognize what it was? Let’s just run with you ‘choose to die.” Well, that is incredibly stupid to choose a creature over the Lord God Almighty Himself. But in all that Adam did and did not do, as the Primary person with top oversight, the buck stops with him. And then he had the audacity to balm God for giving him the ‘flawed’ Eve. (at least Eve blamed the serpent, not God)

    So ALL THE WORLD was cursed because of ADAM. Why? because God put him in charge to tend, guard, keep, cultivate, dress, work Eden, but by extension pretty much everything. And he utterly failed in bringing up his wife blameless before the Lord.

    So yes, unfortunately Adam was and is responsible for Eve’s sin, and they have ‘gifted’ that sin to all of us.

  6. T.R.
    A beautifully written post about the blessings God in Christ Jesus has given to us. Thank you & a blessed Christmas to you and your family.

    Diane

  7. @Jason #5

    If Adam did not correctly relay God’s instructions to her then that is teaching bad doctrine, a violation of the third commandment I think plus the 9th. You say “possible neglect/abandonment”, more sin. But there was no sin until the fall! If there was then this was hardly paradise. This is not what I was taught as a youth – but it is what this piece seems to be pushing. None of us are ordained here so perhaps this can be resolved.

    Jason,

    You miss the plain words of scripture before you. Please read them again. Adam confesses exactly what happened. So does Eve. They did not lie to God. Eve however also confesses her mistake “I was deceived”, but Adam does not so God tells him exactly what his error was.

    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife”

    And here we have the setup through which everything else about men and women in scripture comes. Husbands will always be tempted to listen to (follow) their wives and wives will always be tempted to be contrary to (lead) their husbands.

    There is so much to be learned here, but woman worship isn’t part of it. Blaming Adam for what Eve did is not part of it. You have to torture the texts to get to those conclusions.

  8. @Ben #4

    In another article on this site, Husband, Love your Wife with the Small Catechism, I wrote:

    Many questions about Adam’s role in this have been asked. Was he with Eve when she was talking with the Devil? Was he near enough that it could be said he was with her, but not so near as to hear the conversation? Was he right beside her, and not speaking up?

    I don’t know. But here is what I do know. Scripture interprets Scripture. In Romans 5, Paul does not ascribe this fall to Eve. In verses 12-20, Paul points to Adam ten times:

    •through one man sin entered the world
    •death reigned from Adam
    •transgression of Adam
    •one man’s offense
    •the one who sinned
    •one offense
    •one man’s offense
    •death reigned through the one
    •one man’s offense
    •one man’s disobedience

    This makes no sense if we view Eve’s sin as one offense and Adam’s sin as another offense. There is one offense. This one offense is the offense of Adam. How are Adam and Eve involved in one and the same offense, so that naming only Adam’s offense does also include Eve’s same offense? Only the Lutheran understanding of the fall can answer this.

    http://steadfastlutherans.org/2016/06/husband-love-your-wife-with-the-small-catechism/

  9. @T. R. Halvorson #8

    Thank you,

    Please consider if original sin is passed through the male line.

    “visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” plus everything you reference plus birth of Jesus.

    Is there any scripture that points to the sins of the wife being passed down?

  10. @Ben #7

    I am reading the Scriptures. Adam was always responsible for Eve. It didn’t become a curse until the Fall. @T. R. Halvorson also points out to other Scripture where because of Adam all have sinned, so that can imply that Eve’s sin is also Adam’s sin. And they BOTH did disobey God and ate the fruit. SO when sin is passed down through the father, it is because all the household sins, including wife’s and to the daughters, flow from him.

    Martin Luther and Lutherans tend to say that overtime you beak any Commandment, you also automatically break the 1st, because the self-centeredness that causes you to sin naturally violates God’s will of guiding you life. Similarly, Eve’s specific sin caused Adam to suffer the original sin. (maybe not a great analogy…)

    I do agree that there was no sin initially and everything was perfect. It is that at the Fall one act triggered a cascade of sins. Doubt, disbelief, disobedience, collusion, blame; it all happened at once. And then the layered consequences resulted, with more boundaries and restriction, and authority became authoritarianism (harsher relationship between man and woman).

    I have tried to work this out to argue against misogyny (woman sinned, so women are evil) and feminism (women not given vocation of headship, i.e. women’s ordination). So what you write just sound quite right to my ears. And I don’t think I have to torture the texts at all to understand this.

  11. @Jason #10

    I understand the difficulty and discomfort holding women accountable for their sins. It is so easy to hold men accountable but then so many fail to love women properly by holding them accountable for their own.

    It is easy to say that their mistakes are only because of our own and we are responsible but it is a horrible error.

    It all starts with getting Adam and Eve right.

    I don’t understand what you say here:
    “I have tried to work this out to argue against misogyny (woman sinned, so women are evil) and feminism (women not given vocation of headship, i.e. women’s ordination). So what you write just sound quite right to my ears.”

    Be wary of Matthew 18:

    At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

    This is how we are to accept scripture, as a child accepts things. With no preconceived ideas or doubts. If we read it trying to come to ‘acceptable’ positions (or whatever we desire) on current ‘social issues’ we will undoubtedly fail. You already know this, I’m just saying it for my benefit.

  12. Why do I feel that this discussion detracts from the greater and more important truth of resurrection and regeneration and the pure Gospel?
    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  13. @Ben #14

    I don’t inherit sin or death from Eve. No scripture says I do. I inherit sin and death from Adam. What is his transgression? If you don’t consider anything his transgression until he does what Eve suggests, you are too far into the middle of the story, and not beginning at the beginning of sin entering the world.

    As for Adam having no responsibility for Eve before the curses for sin, do you reject the Lutheran teaching of the order of creation?

  14. Of course not, and here is what I wrote earlier:

    having to “rule over” your wife is punishment (post fall). Leading and instructing an obedient wife who is submissive to you in everything is not punishment, it is the office of husband (pre fall).

    And another one:

    Adam confesses exactly what happened. So does Eve. They did not lie to God. Eve however also confesses her mistake “I was deceived”, but Adam does not so God tells him exactly what his error was.
    “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife”

    Why do you read in words and situations that aren’t there and ignore the ones that are?

  15. I don’t see anything in Romans 5 that is counter to what I’ve said. We don’t disagree that sin came into the world through Adam. It was his world. If he hadn’t eaten maybe God would have made him another wife.

    You keep coming back to that while What I take issue with is this:

    “Adam is thoroughly involved with Eve in this. He is responsible for it. He stood idly by and watched his wife die without parting his lips to speak the words of life to her. Eve gave a distorted echo of the Word, but Adam gave no echo at all.”

    a) You don’t know that Eve gave a distorted echo of the word. Nothing tells us that these were the only words ever spoken by God before the fall. He could have personally told her those exact words. Cite scripture saying otherwise!

    b) You don’t know that Adam gave no echo at all. Nothing is recorded, again lack of evidence is not proof that it didn’t happen.

    c) God never says once that he is responsible for her. Not until the fall. Not anymore than the birds of the air or fish of the sea (that I can recall). He certainly never says that he is responsible if she eats from that tree.

    d) We don’t know how much of a conversation Adam and Eve had before he ate, we only know that they did have one because God said so. It could have been a moment or many hours. Only that Adam listened to her and ate.

  16. @Ben #18

    Luther says:

    She does not mention the punishment as God had stated it. He had simply stated (Gen. 2:17): “On whatever day you will eat from it, you will surely die.” Out of this absolute statement she herself makes one that is not absolute when she adds: “Lest perchance we shall die.”

    This is a striking flaw, and one that must not be overlooked; for it shows that she has turned from faith to unbelief. For just as a promise demands faith, so a threat also demands faith. … On her own she is adding to God’s Word the little word “perchance.” And so the deceit of the lying spirit met with success. What he sought to achieve above all – to lead Eve away from the Word and faith – this he has now achieved to the extent that Eve distorts the Word of God.

    Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis in Luther’s Works, vol. 1, p.155 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958).

    Johann Gerhard expresses the same thing this way.

    On her own she added “perchance,” as if it were uncertain that they would die if they had eaten of it, though God nevertheless had expressed His will openly and clearly [Gen 2:17]. She also adds on her own that the tree was indeed not even to be touched. …

    Afterward, on the basis of the answer of Eve, who did not correctly recount God’s prohibition, the devil becomes more bold and completely denies the Word of God.

    Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces: On Original Sin, On Actual Sins, On Free Choice, pp. 7, 15 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014).

  17. @Ben #18

    You reject the argument from silence, when I show that in the text, Adam gave no echo of the Word at all to Eve in this temptation.

    Then you make multiple arguments from silence.

    I make an argument from silence to prove the silence of Adam. You make arguments from silence not to prove silence, but speech; to uphold the possibility that things not in the text nevertheless were stated.

    This is profoundly inconsistent and unsound.

  18. I make an argument to prove speech based on “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” which invalidates the argument for silence that you make as I prove that words were spoken that were not recorded.

    So I modify “God never says once that he is responsible for her” to “God never says once that he is responsible for her in this way in the text”, delete a and remain consistent in my statement. I also submit that the former is more likely correct as well because in the text God details the error as listening and not anything else (such as failing to lead).

    As you start to add “in the text” to your statement to correct elements of it then those pieces which fail that test fall away changing the meaning significantly. The play between those pieces which follow the text and those that do not make it unsound.

    That Luther quote is about Eve and why I delete a above, it says nothing of Adam. It also deals with the text as it exists and doesn’t attempt to fill in holes with desired conclusions. It does nothing to defend your assault on Adam which is likely a new age interpretation designed to undermine male headship. You are on the wrong side of a very important issue. It is perhaps the only real pattern of error that I’ve seen on this site reading it for the last year. I urge you to correct it as only a few of the writers propagate it.

    It is proper to only speak of those items to which scripture speaks and to stay silent on those with which it is silent. Your passage in question does not pass this test.

  19. @Ben #21

    @Ben #18

    This has become a non-tracking conversation.

    You wrote:

    a) You don’t know that Eve gave a distorted echo of the word.

    Tracking that, in response to it, about Eve’s distorted echo of the Word, I quoted Luther’s and Gerhard’s exegesis of the text.

    To that you respond:

    That Luther quote is about Eve and why I delete a above, it says nothing of Adam.

    That is not tracking.

    Of course it is not about Adam. Of course it is about Eve. It is given in answer to what you said about Eve.

    You have refused the teaching of Luther on your point about Eve. You have refused the teaching of Gerhard on your point about Eve. You have refused them by failing to even connect them to your point about Eve. It would be foolish of me to expect that I could fare any better than they have. I am sorry that this conversation has not tracked and did not end better.

  20. @Ben #21

    your assault on Adam which is likely a new age interpretation designed to undermine male headship

    How, by saying Adam is the head, and hence responsible, would someone be undermining his headship? Does headship have only prerogatives and not responsibility?

    How, by saying headship existed in the holy state before the fall into sin, and not merely as a consequence of sin, would someone be undermining headship?

  21. Reread what I said, I delete my point a (I abandon it) based on what Luther said. The word changes the meaning too much so it isn’t like different sayings of the same parables in different gospels. He is correct. He also says absolutely nothing about Adam and can’t be used to support anything else you said.

    That should track just fine with you. Its the only reading of what I wrote that makes sense. What else could you possibly think those words meant?

    Then you try say that a husband having responsibility for his wife (dubious, but something we need not cover) means also having responsibility for her sin (the topic of our conversation from the start). That sin is somehow shared between people instead of individual or that somehow a husband takes the burden of a wife’s sin. This is all quite wrong.

    So no, there is no responsibility for a wife’s sin by a husband except as outlined in Numbers 30 where by he commands her to break her word. There is no command by Adam for Eve to eat. There is no sin by him until he ate and no mistake except what God tells us.

    Stop reading modern culture on top of Genesis to see what you want, Adam at fault for Eve. If you follow through that logic it leads to places like this:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130512020745/http://bible.org/seriespage/what-every-husband-needs-know

    Dark places, so far from the word of God as to be unrecognizable. Once you go down this path the only thing left of headship is responsibility for failure. When the wife misbehaves it somehow becomes the fault of the Husband so to correct it he has to fix himself and so the husband loses all authority. It basically gives headship to the wife by giving her the ability to cause any decision to be made by acting properly or poorly in response. It is only a very few steps from what you are teaching.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.