Does God adopt His own children?

[Salamander]

Big question for the Calvinist: Why would God need to adopt those that were already His from the foundations of the world?

 

[Ransom]

Look up some material on Roman adoption and coming-of-age formalities, and you'll understand why Paul uses this analogy.

 

[Hope of Glory]

This all comes down to the doctrine of election. If you equate election with being saved, then it's confusing.

To our way of thinking, when you say “adoption”, you are talking about a child being born to one set of parents, and then being adopted by another set of parents.

Well, there are many people who talk about being adopted into the family of God. When you are born into the family of God, is it necessary to also be adopted into the family? When we receive Jesus Christ as our personal savior, we are born from above into the family of God. Being born into the family of God, means adoption (in modern terms) is not necessary.

The phrase “adoption of children” is the translation of one Greek word, “huiothesia”. This word is the same word that is used in [Romans 8:15] and is a compound word containing the words “huios” and “thesis”.

The word “huios” means “son”. It’s a mature child or an adult child. Spiritually, it’s a person who is spiritually where God wants him to be. “Huios” is talking about maturity and son-ship, as opposed to nativity or simply being a child. Maturity and son-ship were not attained at birth. Instead, it waited until the thirtieth year.

So, we have the first half of “huiothesia”, which is “huios” or “son”. The word “thesis” means “to put”, “to lay”, “to appoint”, or “to ordain”. Not son-ship itself, but son-ship conferred. There is not a single hint to suggest that the word “huiothesia” means “adoption”. The word “huiothesia” means “To appoint as a son” or “ordain to son-ship”.

So, adoption is placing a child that has been born into the family into a position of a son. A good illustration of this is when a Jewish boy becomes a “son of the commandment” and a full member of the congregation at his bar mitzvah. The Hebrew word “bar” means “son”, and the word “mitzvah” means “command”. The root word, “tsavah” means to “enjoin” and is translated “appoint”, “charge”, “put”, or “command”. The elect were chosen to become sons before the foundation of the world, but have not been made manifest.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Look up some material on Roman adoption and coming-of-age formalities, and you'll understand why Paul uses this analogy.

Sorry, but I have an English Bible and apply the Scripture to the English understanding and don't allow Roman catholocism to dictate what the Bible means.

I also understand the harmony of all Scripture to establish doctrine and manner of life.

Election as the calvinist "understands" it would mean that all the "elect" were already God's children and also God's people, but too many Scriptures disagree with that belief system and refute it as being false.

We are give the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry "Abba, Father". This means we were once NOT the child of God and in need of another father as the means to support our lives. Eternal specifically.

Being once the children of wrath, as Eph 2 clearly speaks, but God who is rich in mercy, now we are become the sons of God by and through the power of grace and adopted into the family of God and joint heirs with His ONly Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

God doesn't adopt His own children.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Big question for the Calvinist: Why would God need to adopt those that were already His from the foundations of the world?

Sal - bravo! Excellent and thoughtful question.

God elected who would be saved from eternity past. There was never a time that God did not know who would He would call. Of course this a bedrock foundation of Reformed theology. Now, why does God need to adopt those He has called? God choose to work through a process in calling His children to salvation. Why? Well the simple answer is that it brings Him glory. The honest answer? No one knows why God chose this particular plan of redemption. What entered into the mind of God and who are we to understand it? We will never know in this life. Perhaps we will in the life to come.

Anyway, I digress. Adoption is made possible by the finished work of Christ. When we are saved we receive the "righteousness of God in Christ." This is agreed on by both Arminians and Calvinists. The New Perspective on Paul crowd emasculate this biblical truth. Adoption is the final part of the process that brings the former unbeliever into right standing with God. We are actually hidden in Christ. Our sin is no longer. It doesn't matter whether you are a Calvinist or Arminian. In God's providence He has decided to use this process. It brings Him glory. Adoption is neither a Calvinist or Arminian distinctive. It is cherised by both groups, and rightfully so!

 

[Salamander]

Oh, OK, I see you don't know what you're talking about like most Calvinists.

If God "elects" as you say, then the elect were His in the beginning and are not adopted at all.

Are the children of wrath also elect and precious?

I never said God doesn't know who will become the elect, but that is the point, one isn't elect until after salvation.

Being elect and precious are synonomous, being elect and the children of wrath, dead in tresspasses and sins are not.

I do love the harmony of Scripture to refute fasle doctrines, don't you?

Besides, Truth doesn't need to be reformed.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Oh, OK, I see you don't know what you're talking about like most Calvinists.

If God "elects" as you say, then the elect were His in the beginning and are not adopted at all.

Are the children of wrath also elect and precious?

I never said God doesn't know who will become the elect, but that is the point, one isn't elect until after salvation.

Being elect and precious are synonomous, being elect and the children of wrath, dead in tresspasses and sins are not.

I do love the harmony of Scripture to refute fasle doctrines, don't you?

Besides, Truth doesn't need to be reformed.

Sal - God knew who the elect were in eternity past. No Reformed theologian I know disagrees with that. You are not Reformed so of courseyou are going to disagree. But even the elect were once dead in their trespasses in sins (Eph. 2:1). How do we know this? Because Paul said in the same chapter:

Ephesians 2:3 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Paul writes that he was a once a child of wrath even though he was elect. God chose to use a process to regenerate the elect.

Sal, I don't know who are trying to convice. You certainly are not going to convince Reformed Christians of your point of view. Are you preaching to the choir?

 

[Salamander]

Sal, I don't know who are trying to convice. You certainly are not going to convince Reformed Christians of your point of view. Are you preaching to the choir?

If I were to convince anyone in the Reformed cult, it would not honour God. But if God can break through the false doctrine and teach them the truth according to the harmony of His Word, then He will be glorified.

If I am "preaching to the choir", then assuredly there are some that are not elect yet. It is not "my point of view" but it is Bible Doctrine that teaches one is not elect until after salvation.

God adopts the children of wrath who respond to the gift of grace. God is never a respector of persons. The Dutch reformist has God only respecting the persons He "elected" for salvation, that is heresy.

One has to change the Bible and it's wording to fit that theology.

"Any" will have to be changed into "only", "all" has to be changed into "some", "will" has to be changed into "must", "longsuffering" would be changed into "tyranny", "grace" would be changed into "law", etc., etc.

The reformist takes the gift of grace and turns it into a demand of law.

Yes God did chose the process of grace received and repentence unto salvation through faith given by measure to every man, else God is a tyrant to chose family memebrs and friends alike to be forwever bansihed to hell with no chance to receive Jesus as their Saviour.

I am not a robot with a future that will erase all memeory of my family and friends that refused the gift of grace offered to every man. Maybe you are?

Eternity surrounds the time frame of man. Man has that time frame to receive or reject. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. God knows the end result, He did not command the actions taking place in that time frame as a controlled experiement. If that were the case, as the reformist believes it, then God institued sin. That is not the case.

 

[webdog]

The honest answer? No one knows why God chose this particular plan of redemption.

Why can a reformer use the "I don't know why" phrase on something the Bible states clearly, but when the non calvinist uses the "I don't know why" answer to the question always thrown at them..."what makes one person believe over another" where Scripture does not state why, the reformers have an answer? How can something the Bible is silent on have an answer, and something the Bible is clear on be a "mystery"?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
Look up some material on Roman adoption and coming-of-age formalities, and you'll understand why Paul uses this analogy.

Sorry, but I have an English Bible and apply the Scripture to the English understanding and don't allow Roman catholocism to dictate what the Bible means.</font>[/QUOTE]Ladies and Gentlemen,

The Arminian Hermeneutic.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Afterall, Paul did write that letter to the British and Americans, didn't he?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Salamander]

Oh, OK, so God inspired the Bible ONLY to those it is specifically addressed to?

 

[Salamander]

BTW, not Arminian. Not calvinist.

 

[Salamander]

BTW, not Arminian. Not calvinist.Dont follow the teachings if men, I follow the harmony of God's word.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Oh, OK, so God inspired the Bible ONLY to those it is specifically addressed to?

Nope. But, he did inspire it to be written to the Romans. In order to understand the message for today, we must first understand the context of the message for the original audience. It is called exegesis, as opposed to eisegesis, which adds to the message of the Word of God something that was never there. We should be very careful not to do that.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Oh, OK, so God inspired the Bible ONLY to those it is specifically addressed to?

Sal, I think what Joseph is trying to say is that you made a very ridiculous comment about Roman Catholicism, when the original comment talked about Roman adoption practices. It had nothing to do with Catholicism and everything to do with the societal practices in which Paul was writing.

If you want to understand how a term like "adoption" was used in the Bible, which was written in a 1st century Roman society, then you might want to familiarize yourself with 1st century Roman practices of adoption.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Salamander:
Big question for the Calvinist: Why would God need to adopt those that were already His from the foundations of the world?

Bigy question for the non-Calvinist: Why would God need to adopt those who had chosen to be born into His family in the first place?

 

[Calvibaptist]

And another thing...

Isn't it interesting that even in our modern society, when a child is being adopted, they don't ask his opinion on the matter? The child doesn't choose his adoptive parents. The parents choose the child and it is done. The child doesn't get to say yes or no. After the adoption papers, the child can now choose to love his new parents.

Gee, sounds like Paul used a calvinistic concept here as well.

 

[Bill Brown]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The honest answer? No one knows why God chose this particular plan of redemption.

Why can a reformer use the "I don't know why" phrase on something the Bible states clearly, but when the non calvinist uses the "I don't know why" answer to the question always thrown at them..."what makes one person believe over another" where Scripture does not state why, the reformers have an answer? How can something the Bible is silent on have an answer, and something the Bible is clear on be a "mystery"? </font>[/QUOTE]I stand by my reply. The bible does not say why God chose Joe, Sally, Betty, Fred or Alphonse. Why does God choose Joe and not Ed? We don't know. All we know is that God chooses the elect for His to glorify Himself. Look at Romans 9:

Romans 9:10-12 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger."

Why did God choose one over the other? "...in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand.." The word for 'choice' is the same word for 'election.' In fact some translation use the word 'election.' So even though we know God chooses according to His plan, we do not know why specific people are chosen and others are not. The bible just doesn't say.

 

[Bill Brown]

If I were to convince anyone in the Reformed cult,

Sal, it grieves me to see you stoop so low as to call Reformed believers cultists. You obviously know very little about the Reformation. To try and educate you would be fruitless since you are close-minded and not open to the truth.

I joined the Baptist board for fruitful debate and will continue in that pursuit with all believers of goodwill whether they be Reformed or Arminian. But you sir will not be one of those I seek dialouge with. I may vehemently disagree with a fellow brother or sister in here on a particular point of doctrine but I have never hinted that someone was in a cult. You owe all believers in here an apology....Arminian and Calvinist.