I find it interesting that as I am reading about the Globalization of English that there is a striking parallel already noted in Scripture. And this, the tower of Babel. This was the last time the world was unified under one language.
And then - God Himself said that if the people speak one language - then can anything NOT be done by them?
The hidden understanding behind this is that if man was wicked from his youth up, with his heart set only on evil, then this would lead to disasterous results for mankind. We would be able to devise and employ evil on an unprecendented magnitude.
And so, we are told that God came in and confused the people and cause the birth of many languages.
This all was 'undone' on the day of Pentacost, when there was the gift of tongues and the Word of the Gospel went forth in all languages.
Yet, there seems to be another aspect to it.
Biblical prophecy states that the world is being divided into two groups. A form of massive globalization. One (the majority) would be a people to be ruled under one king - the anti-Christ. The other (the minority) a people group that would be ruled under another King - the Christ; specifically Jesus.
With this understanding in mind, is it any wonder that the world indeed is converging under one language? If people from all nations are being unified, would this not be expected?
With this biblical view in mind, I don't find it difficult to believe that the world indeed will come to be unified, and hold one majority language; English.
It seems to fit into the Biblical prediction of the end times very well
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Standardized Testing and the Pen is mightier than the iPhone
Here's an interesting blog post that showed up on my email today
12:23 PM
It's titled - "When an adult took standardized tests forced on kids"
12:23 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-an-adult-took-standardized-tests-forced-on-kids/2011/12/05/gIQApTDuUO_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter
12:24 PM
here's an interesting snippit:
"On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.
He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate.
I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities."
12:25 PM
and for you "output processors" like me: http://www.fastcompany.com/1798782/when-pen-beats-phone-a-case-for-writing-things-out
12:23 PM
It's titled - "When an adult took standardized tests forced on kids"
12:23 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/when-an-adult-took-standardized-tests-forced-on-kids/2011/12/05/gIQApTDuUO_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter
12:24 PM
here's an interesting snippit:
"On the reading test, I got 62% . In our system, that’s a “D”, and would get me a mandatory assignment to a double block of reading instruction.
He continued, “It seems to me something is seriously wrong. I have a bachelor of science degree, two masters degrees, and 15 credit hours toward a doctorate.
I help oversee an organization with 22,000 employees and a $3 billion operations and capital budget, and am able to make sense of complex data related to those responsibilities."
12:25 PM
and for you "output processors" like me: http://www.fastcompany.com/1798782/when-pen-beats-phone-a-case-for-writing-things-out
Sunday, October 30, 2011
SFL, CFL, Ethics and grading....
Skype post:
Ok.. I'm going to openly share a thought b4 I lose it..(non TPOV but something to CHEW on... like a rubber cookie...)
So, to do SFL properly, and to rate it, you need to define norms. And one thing this article notes are Norms on society. Ie. sociolinguistic competence means that when you walk in late, you need to say sorry, and then trigger the lexical language knowledge to say it.
Well... who's to say that you are to say sorry when you are late?
Granted, I agree, but what is going on is that there are some ethical values being injected into the "norm". Now without arguing what is right or wrong, the potential for abuse is then seen - for if 'Competency' includes sociatal responses, and Ss are graded for it according to that norm, who's to then alter that norm? And by so doing, they will force people (they need to demonstrate 'competency') into fitting into a certain social mold. It can easily be a control factor.
Because context is now tied in, exams can be structured to "grade" someone's cultural / societal responses. And if the wrong 'standard' are injected, testing and grading can be used to manipulate people.
The key is: by what standard does one determine the "norm" for behavior in a given setting?
This is clearly an ethical question.
My point: Ethics, values, and morals, cannot be separated from ELL. Not if we are going to start to 'grade' people on their social responses.
It's integral
Ok.. I'm going to openly share a thought b4 I lose it..(non TPOV but something to CHEW on... like a rubber cookie...)
So, to do SFL properly, and to rate it, you need to define norms. And one thing this article notes are Norms on society. Ie. sociolinguistic competence means that when you walk in late, you need to say sorry, and then trigger the lexical language knowledge to say it.
Well... who's to say that you are to say sorry when you are late?
Granted, I agree, but what is going on is that there are some ethical values being injected into the "norm". Now without arguing what is right or wrong, the potential for abuse is then seen - for if 'Competency' includes sociatal responses, and Ss are graded for it according to that norm, who's to then alter that norm? And by so doing, they will force people (they need to demonstrate 'competency') into fitting into a certain social mold. It can easily be a control factor.
Because context is now tied in, exams can be structured to "grade" someone's cultural / societal responses. And if the wrong 'standard' are injected, testing and grading can be used to manipulate people.
The key is: by what standard does one determine the "norm" for behavior in a given setting?
This is clearly an ethical question.
My point: Ethics, values, and morals, cannot be separated from ELL. Not if we are going to start to 'grade' people on their social responses.
It's integral
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Magician's Dissapearing Act in SLA
There is an uprising these days in SLA research it seems. And much of it is to do with terminology. I remember sitting in class, hearing one day, how the words "native speaker" are no longer "acceptable". Rather, they are "novice" speakers.
I, personally, find this ridiculous. Granted, I understand the reasoning of the "local" and the need for a definition of the Community of Practice etc etc etc.. but still, to remove this 'name' seems to be more than a redefinition- it appears to be the removal of a standard; that of... what we would call a "native speaker".
(According to the new definition, I am an "expert speaker" while my non-native friends are "novice speakers". The irony is, that they are more expert than I am. I ought to be called a "native novice" and they, a "non-native expert")
I remember running across this also in one of my research articles (Hall?) about multicompetence and bilingualism. There, again, they argued that the term needs to be done away with. And in their discourse, the alluded to how the notion of interlanguage is also dismissed - for without comparison to a native speaker, the L2 learner can be seen to be competent and not 'a failed L2 native speaker'. (Citation to follow).
Ok. So you change the name Native Speaker. Does that change the fact that there does exist such a standard that is considered "native english"? NO. change the label, but the concept still exists. Yes, that standard may not be accepted by all peoples now, but does that change the fact that it exists? no! It still exists. You simply have taken away it's label.
But what will happen next? Well, if (and I doubt it) the field starts to take on the word native to mean something else (or in my article, multicompetence) people will start to use that word and start to look that 'direction'. As soon as they think in that direction, that label (concept) comes up and their minds are redirected. And the real concept.. because it no longer has a label.. disappears. Not that it really disappears - it's still there - but people will 'walk around it' because they are being 'redirected' by the new words.
See... by changing terminology, and changing words, and using certain words frequently, (and have them "accepted" in the field), you are working magic. A disappearing act.
And in the research field where authority is when big name so-and -so cites so-and-so, who cites so-and-so, you are 'bound' by a web of published material. And so the pressure is to remain 'in the stream'.
It's a subtle magic disappearing act. I suppose it's the "out of sight, out of mind", or in this case, "out of my vocab, out of my mind". The only problem is, even if one can't see it, it still exists.
I, personally, find this ridiculous. Granted, I understand the reasoning of the "local" and the need for a definition of the Community of Practice etc etc etc.. but still, to remove this 'name' seems to be more than a redefinition- it appears to be the removal of a standard; that of... what we would call a "native speaker".
(According to the new definition, I am an "expert speaker" while my non-native friends are "novice speakers". The irony is, that they are more expert than I am. I ought to be called a "native novice" and they, a "non-native expert")
I remember running across this also in one of my research articles (Hall?) about multicompetence and bilingualism. There, again, they argued that the term needs to be done away with. And in their discourse, the alluded to how the notion of interlanguage is also dismissed - for without comparison to a native speaker, the L2 learner can be seen to be competent and not 'a failed L2 native speaker'. (Citation to follow).
Ok. So you change the name Native Speaker. Does that change the fact that there does exist such a standard that is considered "native english"? NO. change the label, but the concept still exists. Yes, that standard may not be accepted by all peoples now, but does that change the fact that it exists? no! It still exists. You simply have taken away it's label.
But what will happen next? Well, if (and I doubt it) the field starts to take on the word native to mean something else (or in my article, multicompetence) people will start to use that word and start to look that 'direction'. As soon as they think in that direction, that label (concept) comes up and their minds are redirected. And the real concept.. because it no longer has a label.. disappears. Not that it really disappears - it's still there - but people will 'walk around it' because they are being 'redirected' by the new words.
See... by changing terminology, and changing words, and using certain words frequently, (and have them "accepted" in the field), you are working magic. A disappearing act.
And in the research field where authority is when big name so-and -so cites so-and-so, who cites so-and-so, you are 'bound' by a web of published material. And so the pressure is to remain 'in the stream'.
It's a subtle magic disappearing act. I suppose it's the "out of sight, out of mind", or in this case, "out of my vocab, out of my mind". The only problem is, even if one can't see it, it still exists.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Thinking structure and word order
I'm reading my Scovel textbook and there is an example cited where a student read the statement "I am eating lunch later" and said that eating here meant they were eating right now.
This leads to something interesting which ties into the idea that form relates directly to 'thinking patterns'. (This may be what could be considered UG)
My hypothesis/theory/whatever is that by teaching certain langauges, you are teaching certain ways to think. And what you can see is that as words are introduced in a certain order (according to a language's grammar) you are also taking the listener down a 'cognitive path'
This example demonstrates it very well.
Considering that fact that 'eating' really is present continuous and thus does mean eating presently, listen to the words as they roll of someone's tongue and try to map what is going on in the listener's head.
"I... (the listener is now focused on the speaker - it is about him)
I am... (he is doing...what?)
I am eating (we envision him eating ..right now.. just as the student thought)
I am eating later" (now we take that whole "mental picture" and we 'move' it in our mind, to the future; in order to apply the "later")
There is a certain 'form' of handling the thought.
Another quick example:
In English you can say "I went shopping in China". In Chinese, however, you must say "I, in China, went shopping" --> (Wo, zai Zhong Guo, mai dong xi). In English, you form the contruct in your mind of shopping, then you transport that whole mental experience into China. However in Chinese, you first, place yourself (in China), then you form the activity in your mind (shopping). For a Chinese learner, there is no possibility of doing it the English way. You cannot say "I went shopping... in China". It is forbidden. Thus, in the Chinese mind - that form of thinking pattern is not allowed.
What is the point of this? I believe that learning a new language is partly training the mind to think in a different order. A different way to 'configure' concepts. That is part of L2 acquisition.
It is also why it is NOT the same as L1. Because in L1, only one "pattern of thinking" is introduced. Thus in teaching a new language means you are also teaching a "new thinking pattern".
Likewise to train someone off the L1 is not easy. Contrary to our good friend Krashen, learning L2 will never be natural like an L1. Why? Because L1 (formation of thinking patterns) happens on fresh snow; a new mind. L2, happens when a structure is already in place. That makes a world of difference.
[Note: I am now reviewing Attention and memory and this will expose a flaw of the input hypothesis. What the child "pays attention" is completely different from the L2 learner - why? Because L1 is the child's lifeline. He *must* pay attention. The L2 learner? He doesn't have to. The motivation is completely different]
But...once l2 is acquired, and the student now is aware of how to 'rethink', l3, l4, l5 becomes easier as multilingual research shows.
This leads to something interesting which ties into the idea that form relates directly to 'thinking patterns'. (This may be what could be considered UG)
My hypothesis/theory/whatever is that by teaching certain langauges, you are teaching certain ways to think. And what you can see is that as words are introduced in a certain order (according to a language's grammar) you are also taking the listener down a 'cognitive path'
This example demonstrates it very well.
Considering that fact that 'eating' really is present continuous and thus does mean eating presently, listen to the words as they roll of someone's tongue and try to map what is going on in the listener's head.
"I... (the listener is now focused on the speaker - it is about him)
I am... (he is doing...what?)
I am eating (we envision him eating ..right now.. just as the student thought)
I am eating later" (now we take that whole "mental picture" and we 'move' it in our mind, to the future; in order to apply the "later")
There is a certain 'form' of handling the thought.
Another quick example:
In English you can say "I went shopping in China". In Chinese, however, you must say "I, in China, went shopping" --> (Wo, zai Zhong Guo, mai dong xi). In English, you form the contruct in your mind of shopping, then you transport that whole mental experience into China. However in Chinese, you first, place yourself (in China), then you form the activity in your mind (shopping). For a Chinese learner, there is no possibility of doing it the English way. You cannot say "I went shopping... in China". It is forbidden. Thus, in the Chinese mind - that form of thinking pattern is not allowed.
What is the point of this? I believe that learning a new language is partly training the mind to think in a different order. A different way to 'configure' concepts. That is part of L2 acquisition.
It is also why it is NOT the same as L1. Because in L1, only one "pattern of thinking" is introduced. Thus in teaching a new language means you are also teaching a "new thinking pattern".
Likewise to train someone off the L1 is not easy. Contrary to our good friend Krashen, learning L2 will never be natural like an L1. Why? Because L1 (formation of thinking patterns) happens on fresh snow; a new mind. L2, happens when a structure is already in place. That makes a world of difference.
[Note: I am now reviewing Attention and memory and this will expose a flaw of the input hypothesis. What the child "pays attention" is completely different from the L2 learner - why? Because L1 is the child's lifeline. He *must* pay attention. The L2 learner? He doesn't have to. The motivation is completely different]
But...once l2 is acquired, and the student now is aware of how to 'rethink', l3, l4, l5 becomes easier as multilingual research shows.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The power of the word
It's 11pm and I just got home and am licking my wounds after being beat up by SLA512 summaries. Yet.. despite my wretched state.. I feel inspired to write something before I forget it... as the blog is titled, this is uncut, raw, and unedited... so my apologies in advance!! (ok no i'm not sorry...)
I've titled this post "the power of the word" and the whole idea is summarized in what I put as my Skype 'mood':
"What is a 'word'? It is the embodiment of a construct, an idea, a doctrine. To teach words, is then, to teach much more than "mere language". It is a potent seed, if planted right, able to transform a whole person, communities, and even nations"
I'll unpack this idea by once again starting where the idea started - in China teaching.
It was the second semester again, and I was really scratching my head as to what to teach my students. Even though I was there to teach English, I felt really dissatisfied if all they learned was mere English. After all, as I had experienced (and as I am learning the 'field' also agrees), English cannot be taught without a context. Besides that, I wanted them to grow as individuals. I honestly loved my students, and what I took on as my "teacher role" was beyond that of linguistic teaching. I wanted to see them develop as people. In character. In creativity. In every aspect of life. To some degree I had achieved this by exposing them to an entirely new way to experience a classroom. In contrast to their legalistic no-error-allowed teaching experiences, they were experiencing a new atmosphere where they were aloud to laugh, have fun, and most importantly: make mistakes ....and it was ok. They had already overcome their fear of failure and began to speak openly.. which to me is much more than merely a speaking achievement. Something changed in their view of themselves, that enabled them to do that. And that, is the area I want to reach.
Yet, inside, there was frustration for there was so much more I wanted to teach. But how? I can't exactly start doing a "life seminar" class, although much of my content was revolving around real life. How can I really unload something potent? How can I teach a principle or doctrine to them... in the context of an English classroom WITHOUT making the context explicitly clear? (Which the school would realize right away I am not teaching English and may cause stirrings - ie a CBI approach)
And then... an insight came to me. I had the ability to do so. and in a powerful way. I could do so, but choosing carefully the words to teach them. The power comes from understanding, what a "word" really is.
Simply put, a word, is the embodiment of a construct, idea, concept, or doctrine. And by teaching a "word", you are teaching all the concepts that are linked to it. Choose the right concept, and you've got a powerful tool.
Let me cut to the chase with an example. If someone asked you what the word "humility" means, how would you define it? What about if someone asked you to distinguish the word "grace" from "mercy"? What about the word "mediator"? What about "freedom"? "democracy"? How would you do it?
By giving the definition, you are actually teaching (or revealing) a concept, that is represented by those words. This ties into a theory of mine (which I will post...later..when I'm awake) that behind every 'physical' word (I am speaking metaphorically), there is a linked 'concept'. (and then acquiring a language, is done by first identifying that concept you wish to express, and knowing which word to use, and what form, to best express it - learning the "association" - which can be formed by habit leading to fluency; the 'will' determines the 'words')
By teaching the word 'humility', you are exposing the students to a concept that they may not ever have seen. Of course, this assumes that the teacher knows the meaning! (Humility is not weakness! It is the opposite! Immense strength...but under control).
Let me draw on another example.
The most popular book and the most translated book in the entire history of mankind, has a one place where the alteration of a single word has caused much controversy. Yes, this is the Bible, and the place I am referring to is found in Romans 3:25. There is a word that is in the original and translated in the famous KJV but is taken out of many modern translations. It is this word "propitiation". Instead, some translations use the word "atonement" or "sacrifice". How is it, that one word, can cause such a stir?
Rom 3:25 (KJV) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, ..."
It is because that specific word, propitiation, denotes a specific and peculiar concept - namely the appeasement or satisfaction of God's wrath. This was a doctrine revealed in the Law given to the nation of Israel where a lamb had to stand in someone's place and be slaughtered for their sins (death was the punishment) and by offering such a sacrifice, it would propitiate God's wrath. The lamb would die in the place of the man. And God's righteous requirements of that wrong doing (death)... would be satisfied. Propitiated.
This understanding has huge implications for Christians because Jesus claimed to be that lamb (metaphorically), and by dying on the cross in humanity's place, he became a propitiation for the sins of mankind. The wrath of God which the guilty conscience recognizes is relieved only when one realizes that that wrath fell on Jesus, allowing God to remain just, and let convicted sinners go free.
This is the essence of the whole Christian/gospel message which is simply states that to be 'saved' is to simply 'see' or recognize the fact that Jesus did accomplish this for us and to accept it as truth and trust in it (ie "faith in his blood").
But if that one word is taken out, the whole understanding of God's wrath being satisfied by Christ's death is obscured... which can leave a Christian miserable, always wondering what will happen because of all the wrong he has done, which he knows must incur the wrath of a just God. And hence, why there was a controversy over the exclusion or alteration of that word.
Embodied in that one word, is a concept so rich and powerful, that can lift a man crushed and burdened with guilt, into a state of complete freedom, joy and peace!
The applications of this in the classroom are enormous!
Words have power. The power is not in the linguistic word itself, it's in the concepts they represent. And as a teacher, by choosing carefully the words you teach, you can tap into the heart, mind, and soul of an individual. You can plant ideas. You can influence thinking. You can expose them to concepts they have never dreamed of!
And by choosing the right words, you can tap into their heart. You can leave an impression deeper than you ever thought possible.
And that's how, as an English teacher, one can effect deep change, .....through simply teaching "English".
(Next post, I will share some practical class activities where you can do this)
Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
I've titled this post "the power of the word" and the whole idea is summarized in what I put as my Skype 'mood':
"What is a 'word'? It is the embodiment of a construct, an idea, a doctrine. To teach words, is then, to teach much more than "mere language". It is a potent seed, if planted right, able to transform a whole person, communities, and even nations"
I'll unpack this idea by once again starting where the idea started - in China teaching.
It was the second semester again, and I was really scratching my head as to what to teach my students. Even though I was there to teach English, I felt really dissatisfied if all they learned was mere English. After all, as I had experienced (and as I am learning the 'field' also agrees), English cannot be taught without a context. Besides that, I wanted them to grow as individuals. I honestly loved my students, and what I took on as my "teacher role" was beyond that of linguistic teaching. I wanted to see them develop as people. In character. In creativity. In every aspect of life. To some degree I had achieved this by exposing them to an entirely new way to experience a classroom. In contrast to their legalistic no-error-allowed teaching experiences, they were experiencing a new atmosphere where they were aloud to laugh, have fun, and most importantly: make mistakes ....and it was ok. They had already overcome their fear of failure and began to speak openly.. which to me is much more than merely a speaking achievement. Something changed in their view of themselves, that enabled them to do that. And that, is the area I want to reach.
Yet, inside, there was frustration for there was so much more I wanted to teach. But how? I can't exactly start doing a "life seminar" class, although much of my content was revolving around real life. How can I really unload something potent? How can I teach a principle or doctrine to them... in the context of an English classroom WITHOUT making the context explicitly clear? (Which the school would realize right away I am not teaching English and may cause stirrings - ie a CBI approach)
And then... an insight came to me. I had the ability to do so. and in a powerful way. I could do so, but choosing carefully the words to teach them. The power comes from understanding, what a "word" really is.
Simply put, a word, is the embodiment of a construct, idea, concept, or doctrine. And by teaching a "word", you are teaching all the concepts that are linked to it. Choose the right concept, and you've got a powerful tool.
Let me cut to the chase with an example. If someone asked you what the word "humility" means, how would you define it? What about if someone asked you to distinguish the word "grace" from "mercy"? What about the word "mediator"? What about "freedom"? "democracy"? How would you do it?
By giving the definition, you are actually teaching (or revealing) a concept, that is represented by those words. This ties into a theory of mine (which I will post...later..when I'm awake) that behind every 'physical' word (I am speaking metaphorically), there is a linked 'concept'. (and then acquiring a language, is done by first identifying that concept you wish to express, and knowing which word to use, and what form, to best express it - learning the "association" - which can be formed by habit leading to fluency; the 'will' determines the 'words')
By teaching the word 'humility', you are exposing the students to a concept that they may not ever have seen. Of course, this assumes that the teacher knows the meaning! (Humility is not weakness! It is the opposite! Immense strength...but under control).
Let me draw on another example.
The most popular book and the most translated book in the entire history of mankind, has a one place where the alteration of a single word has caused much controversy. Yes, this is the Bible, and the place I am referring to is found in Romans 3:25. There is a word that is in the original and translated in the famous KJV but is taken out of many modern translations. It is this word "propitiation". Instead, some translations use the word "atonement" or "sacrifice". How is it, that one word, can cause such a stir?
Rom 3:25 (KJV) "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, ..."
It is because that specific word, propitiation, denotes a specific and peculiar concept - namely the appeasement or satisfaction of God's wrath. This was a doctrine revealed in the Law given to the nation of Israel where a lamb had to stand in someone's place and be slaughtered for their sins (death was the punishment) and by offering such a sacrifice, it would propitiate God's wrath. The lamb would die in the place of the man. And God's righteous requirements of that wrong doing (death)... would be satisfied. Propitiated.
This understanding has huge implications for Christians because Jesus claimed to be that lamb (metaphorically), and by dying on the cross in humanity's place, he became a propitiation for the sins of mankind. The wrath of God which the guilty conscience recognizes is relieved only when one realizes that that wrath fell on Jesus, allowing God to remain just, and let convicted sinners go free.
This is the essence of the whole Christian/gospel message which is simply states that to be 'saved' is to simply 'see' or recognize the fact that Jesus did accomplish this for us and to accept it as truth and trust in it (ie "faith in his blood").
But if that one word is taken out, the whole understanding of God's wrath being satisfied by Christ's death is obscured... which can leave a Christian miserable, always wondering what will happen because of all the wrong he has done, which he knows must incur the wrath of a just God. And hence, why there was a controversy over the exclusion or alteration of that word.
Embodied in that one word, is a concept so rich and powerful, that can lift a man crushed and burdened with guilt, into a state of complete freedom, joy and peace!
The applications of this in the classroom are enormous!
Words have power. The power is not in the linguistic word itself, it's in the concepts they represent. And as a teacher, by choosing carefully the words you teach, you can tap into the heart, mind, and soul of an individual. You can plant ideas. You can influence thinking. You can expose them to concepts they have never dreamed of!
And by choosing the right words, you can tap into their heart. You can leave an impression deeper than you ever thought possible.
And that's how, as an English teacher, one can effect deep change, .....through simply teaching "English".
(Next post, I will share some practical class activities where you can do this)
Romans 3
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)