Does God adopt His own children?

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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?

 

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"?

 

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

 

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



Joseph Botwinick

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.