Adoption

[Van]

Now you are simply denying the definition of the word.
You have not answered the points offered by Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia which shows how it relates to the Roman culture of the adoption or son-placing of a son.
You have not answered my exegesis of the entire passage of Gal.4:1-7 which also shows that adoption is son-placing. You are simply making things up as you go.

I provided the definition of "son-placing" and you deny that definition.
I have answered all the points offered by Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, as "son-placing" does not mean to become a child of God by being born anew.
Paul means the same thing in Romans 8:15 and Romans 8:23.
I have presented my view of Galatians 4:5, which is contextually correct.


Bottom line, the word traditionally translated into English as adoption actually means "son placing" and according to Romans 8:23 refers to our promised resurrection, even when used in Romans 9:4.

Would Paul use the same word in the same chapter, eight verses apart, to mean radically different things? Nope. Son-placing is a ceremony where children are placed among the adults of a family. They are revealed as sons, and no longer children. Paul uses this "son placing" metaphorically to refer to when we are revealed as sons of God at Christ's second coming. We are clothed in glorified bodies, and we meet Christ in the air. All the born anew children will be present.

So, "son-placing" actually refers to our promised resurrection. This meaning works for all five verses where Paul uses "son-placing." For even in the Old Testament did God promise the future resurrection of believing Israel. See Daniel 12:2 for example.

In summary all five verses (Romans 8:15, Romans 8:23, Romans 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5 have the Greek word "son-placing" and could better be translated as "promised resurrection."

 

[DHK]

"Adoption: Greek: huiothesia. Noun, a compound noun from 'huio', a son and 'thesia' a placing, thus meaning adoption. The word was a legal technical term for a father's declaration that his natural born child was officially a son or daughter, with all the rights and privileges that this included."

(ASV) For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of [promised resurrection], whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

(Darby) For ye have not received a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye have received a spirit of [promised resurrection], whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

(DRB) For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of [promised resurrection], whereby we cry: Abba (Father).

(EMTV) For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but you received the Spirit of [promised resurrection] by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."

(ESV) For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of [promised resurrection], by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"

(Geneva) For ye haue not receiued the Spirit of bodage, to feare againe: but ye haue receiued the Spirit of [promised resurrection], whereby we cry Abba, Father.

(ISV) For you have not received a spirit of slavery that leads you into fear again. Instead, you have received the Spirit of [promised resurrection] by whom we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

(LITV) For you did not receive a spirit of slavery again to fear, but you received a Spirit of [promised resurrection] by which we cry, Abba! Father!

(YLT) for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of [promised resurrection] in which we cry, `Abba--Father.'

The issue is not that "adoption" is the traditional and poor translation, but that promised resurrection is the actual meaning as can be seen in Romans 8:23

I am sorry to say this Van, but I have only known cults to do what you have just done.
You have taken out the proper translation of a word in the Bible and inserted your own idea. Your idea is not found in Scripture, not found in that verse, and certainly not found in the Greek word underlying "adoption." One cannot go willy-nilly adding to the Word of God whenever and wherever they like.

 

[Van]

I am sorry to say this Van, but I have only known cults to do what you have just done.
You have taken out the proper translation of a word in the Bible and inserted your own idea. Your idea is not found in Scripture, not found in that verse, and certainly not found in the Greek word underlying "adoption." One cannot go willy-nilly adding to the Word of God whenever and wherever they like.

I provided the quote from Vines, the quote from the NKJV lexicon, and Romans 8:23 to support that "son-placing" when used by Paul refers to our promised resurrection. I have not added the modern practice of adoption to scripture.

You say my idea is not found in scripture, but Romans 8:23 presents it.

 

[DHK]

I provided the definition of "son-placing" and you deny that definition.

In the process of adoption, is a person adopted as son at death or at birth; please answer. In my illustration, did my relative take a young child or an elderly man ready to die, when he adopted him. Do most of the people waiting on adoption roles, waiting for someone to adopt--are they waiting for someone in a senior's home (long-term care center) or an infant that they can adopt from just after birth?
--You have the adoption process as taking place at the end of life instead of at the beginning--ludicrous.

I have answered all the points offered by Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, as "son-placing" does not mean to become a child of God by being born anew.

Provide a link to your answers to the post. I have not seen them yet.

Paul means the same thing in Romans 8:15 and Romans 8:23.
I have presented my view of Galatians 4:5, which is contextually correct.

His answers are consistent. He is not consistently wrong. You are. There is only one verse that looks to the future, and that is Romans 8:23. All the others look to the past, and that includes Rom.8:15. There is no verb in that verse that looks to a future event. Why do you twist the Scriptures?

Bottom line, the word traditionally translated into English as adoption actually means "son placing" and according to Romans 8:23 refers to our promised resurrection, even when used in Romans 9:4.

Was Israel adopted as a nation at Mount Sinai (at their birth), or in 70 A.D. (at their death). Which one? At which event were they adopted--at the beginning of their existence or at their end.
Hint:
Deu 7:6
6 "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Would Paul use the same word in the same chapter, eight verses apart, to mean radically different things? Nope. Son-placing is a ceremony where children are placed among the adults of a family. They are revealed as sons, and no longer children. Paul uses this "son placing" metaphorically to refer to when we are revealed as sons of God at Christ's second coming. We are clothed in glorified bodies, and we meet Christ in the air. All the born anew children will be present.

No. That is wrong. In Roman culture rich families adopted children from poorer families, usually willing to give their children up for a better life. At the age of 25 they were able to receive an inheritance. They were adopted at the beginning of their life, not the end. They were adopted as children not as adults.
Go to my post where I exegeted the entire passage of Gal.4:1-7 for you, and respond to that. Paul explains the entire process of adoption and son-placing in Scripture itself. Why not answer the Scripture.
John 1:12 We are given the "right" to be the sons of God when we receive Christ as Savior--when we believe on his name.

So, "son-placing" actually refers to our promised resurrection. This meaning works for all five verses where Paul uses "son-placing." For even in the Old Testament did God promise the future resurrection of believing Israel. See Daniel 12:2 for example.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with our future resurrection. What family on earth adopts a son at the time of his death? That is just plain ridiculous. The resurrection of the body takes place after death. We wait for the redemption of our bodies. It is a future event. I have been adopted already according to Romans 8:15. It is a done deal. All adopted children don't have to wait until death. They are adopted early on in life.

In summary all five verses (Romans 8:15, Romans 8:23, Romans 9:4, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5 have the Greek word "son-placing" and could better be translated as "promised resurrection."

No it isn't. That is a wrong translation and nowhere to be found in the Bible. You don't find that anywhere in any lexicon. It is just plain wrong.

Answer, verse by verse, this post:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2093512&postcount=44

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, I do not know why you ask question over and over that I have already answered?

1) You say "in the process of Adoption" but I say "son-placing" refers to our promised resurrection. That occurs when Christ returns. I have posted this over and over, yet you ask again?

2) I have answered all the points offered by Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, as "son-placing" does not mean to become a child of God by being born anew. To repeat, son-placing refers to our promised resurrection.

3) All 5 verses refer to our promised resurrection. I am not changing the tense to future from past. That charge too is fiction. We have received, when we are born anew into God's family, the Spirit of our promised resurrection. Paul uses "son-placing" here just as he uses it 8 verses later in Romans 8:23.

4) Believing Israel was promised resurrection, Daniel 12:2. And that is what Paul was referring to in Romans 9:4, the same meaning as in all of his other uses.

5) I know there are a ton of commentaries that assert Israel was adopted, but that is reading the modern meaning of adoption back into the Greek text.

6) John 1:12, we are given the right or power to become, repeat, become, the children of God. This refers to us as spiritually born anew believers having the right to our promised resurrection, where we are clothed as children of God in glorified bodies, hence we become physical rather than spiritual only children of God.

7) I have addressed Galatians 4:5 and yet you bring it up again. You are simply repeating your assertions, all of which have been, in my opinion refuted.

8) Again, you claim my position is we are adopted at death. This too is fiction. We will be son-placed when Christ returns, the redemption of our bodies.

9) The meaning of the word translated traditionally as "adoption" is given in all lexicons as "son-placing." In Romans 8:23 son-placing is defined as the redemption of our bodies. So assuming the same word means the same thing, then all five references are to our promised resurrection.

 

[Yeshua1]

I provided the quote from Vines, the quote from the NKJV lexicon, and Romans 8:23 to support that "son-placing" when used by Paul refers to our promised resurrection. I have not added the modern practice of adoption to scripture.

You say my idea is not found in scripture, but Romans 8:23 presents it.

The only thing that you have proven here is that its dangerous to try to argue from the original texts with credible sources IF one has a faulty understanding of what the English versions actually do say and support?

Sounds like you are in a full circle, getting back to many of us hear using and relying upon to what you se as being "bad translations!"

 

[Yeshua1]

Present tense, we are NOW called the children of God, as we WERE past tense with ongoing results, and will be resurrected to become what the present and ongoingadoption grants to us eventually becomming!

 

[Van]

As born anew children of God we are predestined to our "son-placing" when Christ returns, the redemption of our bodies.

 

[DHK]

As born anew children of God we are predestined to our "son-placing" when Christ returns, the redemption of our bodies.

Adoption has nothing to do with predestination. At the time of salvation, one is placed as a (mature) son into the household of God as an heir. He once was a servant in a house of bondage under the law. He is no longer under the law but under grace, a son, an heir of God, and joint-heir with Jesus Christ. As a (mature) son, he has all the rights and privileges of a son, the blessings and inheritances that a son will have. The redemption of the body is simply one aspect of that adoption.
In Rom.8:15 the verse looks at a present relationship which started in the past. It does not look to a future event. There is no future verb in verse 15. Your exegesis of the verse is just plain wrong. We HAVE NOW the Spirit of adoption. We don't have to wait for it, for we have already been adopted.

You have still failed to address post #44, not just one verse (vs.5), but all the verses (1-7) which give the full picture of adoption.

 

[Yeshua1]

As born anew children of God we are predestined to our "son-placing" when Christ returns, the redemption of our bodies.

Either you are right NOW in Adam, lost in sins, part of family of satan, or else right NOW, in Christ as a son/daughter of God!

 

[Van]

So you agree, we have been born anew and are awaiting our son-placing?

Or do you agree with DHK, our bodily resurrection is not predestined?

We now have the Spirit of Promised Resurrection, we do not have to wait for the Spirit.

Bottom line folks, because son-placing has traditionally been wrongly translated as "adoption" a whole bunch of folks have poured the modern meaning of "making a son (or daughter)" into scripture, rather than the actual meaning of placing a son (or daughter).

The problem with the "making a son" view is it requires that Paul used the same word (son-placing) in the same letter (Romans) only eight verses later yet was using the same word to mean two completely different things. That dog will not hunt.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you agree, we have been born anew and are awaiting our son-placing?

Or do you agree with DHK, our bodily resurrection is not predestined?

We now have the Spirit of Promised Resurrection, we do not have to wait for the Spirit.

Bottom line folks, because son-placing has traditionally been wrongly translated as "adoption" a whole bunch of folks have poured the modern meaning of "making a son (or daughter)" into scripture, rather than the actual meaning of placing a son (or daughter).

The problem with the "making a son" view is it requires that Paul used the same word (son-placing) in the same letter (Romans) only eight verses later yet was using the same word to mean two completely different things. That dog will not hunt.

What the BIBLE teaches us is that right NOW, we are children of God thru/by adoption, and that God predentined those He so adopted to have final state of glorification , and the Spirit Himself sealing us is the pledge of that will happen!

 

[percho]

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: 1 John 3:2

Maybe we just don't know what color our feathers will be. Maybe we are in incubation.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you agree, we have been born anew and are awaiting our son-placing?

Or do you agree with DHK, our bodily resurrection is not predestined?

We now have the Spirit of Promised Resurrection, we do not have to wait for the Spirit.

Bottom line folks, because son-placing has traditionally been wrongly translated as "adoption" a whole bunch of folks have poured the modern meaning of "making a son (or daughter)" into scripture, rather than the actual meaning of placing a son (or daughter).

The problem with the "making a son" view is it requires that Paul used the same word (son-placing) in the same letter (Romans) only eight verses later yet was using the same word to mean two completely different things. That dog will not hunt.

Don't worry about if its 'calviniistic" theology or not here about biblcal adoption, as BOTH DHK and I see it pretty much same way, as the bible itself teaches!

 

[Van]

Lets see, both Yeshua1 and DHK claim because we have the Spirit of Promised Resurrection, that means we were born anew, as clearly taught in scripture (1 Peter 1:3) and "adopted" as never mentioned in scripture, until Christ returns. Whatever flips your switch. As a minimalist, I try to avoid adding to scripture and avoiding inferences never found in scripture.

 

[DHK]

Lets see, both Yeshua1 and DHK claim because we have the Spirit of Promised Resurrection, that means we were born anew, as clearly taught in scripture (1 Peter 1:3) and "adopted" as never mentioned in scripture, until Christ returns. Whatever flips your switch. As a minimalist, I try to avoid adding to scripture and avoiding inferences never found in scripture.

There is no "Spirit of Promised Resurrection." You are making that up. It is not found in the Bible. It is not even inferred. It is your eisigesis, and not a good one at that. It is just vain imagination, and that is all.
2. I never said we have the "Spirit of Promised Resurrection." Show that phrase in the Bible. It is not there. It is wrongly used in one translation out of perhaps 20. It is a wrong translation. It is not in the Greek. That much is obvious. Show from a literal Greek translation that it is there. Use the Greek words yourself.
3. I have always distanced adoption from regeneration so why the false allegations here? You should be ashamed of yourself! Go back and read my post carefully. Better yet, answer post #44 like you should have a long time ago.

You are just plain wrong, and make up things as you go along.
You can't answer the plain exposition of God's Word (Gal.4:1-7) can you?
Does the Word of God bother you?

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, again, we are not coming any closer to agreement. As I said, "son-placing" is what is in scripture, not adoption and not promised resurrection. I say "son-placing" refers to our promised resurrection because of Romans 8:23. And I say Paul used the same word (son-placing) eight verses earlier (Romans 8:15) to mean the same thing.

You claim he meant something different, adoption into God's family, but nothing in scripture supports that view. No where is scripture does it say we are made sons through adoption. Rather, we are revealed as sons through son-placing at Christ's second coming, Romans 8:19.

You keep mentioning Galatians 4:1-7 as if I had not addressed it. Sorry but I have, because if you understand "son placing" as meaning "promised resurrection, as taught undeniably in Romans 8:23, then the passage teaches my view and not yours.

Note verse 6, because you are sons, not about to become sons, but are sons already, then God sends forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. This means we were sons before we were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. Thus we had been, past tense, born into God's family before the Spirit of son-placing entered our hearts. Therefore, your whole argument, that the Spirit of Son-Placing in Romans 8:15 indicates adoption is without merit. It indicates we are sons, born of God.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK, again, we are not coming any closer to agreement. As I said, "son-placing" is what is in scripture, not adoption and not promised resurrection. I say "son-placing" refers to our promised resurrection because of Romans 8:23. And I say Paul used the same word (son-placing) eight verses earlier (Romans 8:15) to mean the same thing.

There is a plethora of Scripture that speaks of adoption and son-placing. You hang the entire doctrine on just one verse. To make a comparison that is like that Charismatic snake charmers hanging that one doctrine on one verse in Mark, when there is much other Scripture that would speak against it.
Son-placing has nothing to do with our promised resurrection. You would be resurrected only to stand before the Great White Throne Judgement if you were not placed as a son, adopted into His family, long before that time--the time of the Resurrection. If you have to wait for the resurrection to take place that is gambling with the eternal state of your life. Make sure of life by making sure that you are adopted now. For the redemption of our bodies is but one small aspect of our adoption, not the only aspect.

Moses was adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh. But then he rejected all the privileges and inheritance and the chance to become Pharaoh. He rejected it all, though he was an adoptive son. He was adopted as an infant; rejected the adoption as an adult.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

You claim he meant something different, adoption into God's family, but nothing in scripture supports that view. No where is scripture does it say we are made sons through adoption. Rather, we are revealed as sons through son-placing at Christ's second coming, Romans 8:19.

There are all kinds of examples in the Bible where individuals are adopted as sons, when they are young, but not when they are old. Moses is a good example. He was adopted as an infant. He was placed into the household as an infant--made a son as an infant. That is how it always happens.

That is how it happens spiritually.
When one is born again, he is also adopted, justified, sanctified, forgiven, and a whole lot more. He is adopted at the same time that he becomes a child of God. Regeneration is not the only thing that happens at salvation!!
He is made a son of God, an heir and joint heir with Jesus Christ. And that happens when he is an "infant" spiritually speaking. When he is fully mature (at the resurrection) is not the time when he is adopted. It is an aspect of adoption.
Sons are adopted as children, not when they are about to die.
You have gone off the deep end here. Our spiritual life begins when we are new born babes at the new birth, the same time we are adopted. Our complete inheritance will be fully realized at the resurrection when our redemption is complete as we are given our glorified bodies.
Are you redeemed? Yes or no.
If so, then why do you wait for the redemption of your body?
The same is true with adoption.

You keep mentioning Galatians 4:1-7 as if I had not addressed it. Sorry but I have, because if you understand "son placing" as meaning "promised resurrection, as taught undeniably in Romans 8:23, then the passage teaches my view and not yours.

My friend adopted a child. He did not give him a "promised resurrection." Just how does that fit in? It is absurd. The son came from a broken family, possibly where he was either forsaken by his "father" or even abused. He was about 7 years old. Now a loving Christian man adopted him. For the first time in his life he was able to call him "father," and understand what a "father/son" relationship meant. The word "abba/dad" meant more to him than his younger sister because he knew what it was like not to have one. He was adopted as a son, still early in his life--not a son on his deathbed. That is just unheard of. But that is what you are advocating or teaching.

Note verse 6, because you are sons, not about to become sons, but are sons already, then God sends forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. This means we were sons before we were sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit. Thus we had been, past tense, born into God's family before the Spirit of son-placing entered our hearts. Therefore, your whole argument, that the Spirit of Son-Placing in Romans 8:15 indicates adoption is without merit. It indicates we are sons, born of God.

Because you are sons. Pay attention to that.
You are putting an unnecessary time element there like many Calvinists do. Salvation is simultaneous. That is when one is saved he is regenerated, saved, justified, sanctified, and adopted all at the same time.
The only thing that comes first IMO is faith. The Bible teaches that you must believe in order to be saved.
We are made sons at the same time we became children of God through regeneration.
We were once a son, a slave to the bondage of the law and sin;
God took us and placed us as His son, His servant with the Spirit of Adoption into His family, his household.

 

[Iconoclast]

There is a plethora of Scripture that speaks of adoption and son-placing. You hang the entire doctrine on just one verse. To make a comparison that is like that Charismatic snake charmers hanging that one doctrine on one verse in Mark, when there is much other Scripture that would speak against it.
Son-placing has nothing to do with our promised resurrection. You would be resurrected only to stand before the Great White Throne Judgement if you were not placed as a son, adopted into His family, long before that time--the time of the Resurrection. If you have to wait for the resurrection to take place that is gambling with the eternal state of your life. Make sure of life by making sure that you are adopted now. For the redemption of our bodies is but one small aspect of our adoption, not the only aspect.

Moses was adopted by the daughter of Pharaoh. But then he rejected all the privileges and inheritance and the chance to become Pharaoh. He rejected it all, though he was an adoptive son. He was adopted as an infant; rejected the adoption as an adult.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

There are all kinds of examples in the Bible where individuals are adopted as sons, when they are young, but not when they are old. Moses is a good example. He was adopted as an infant. He was placed into the household as an infant--made a son as an infant. That is how it always happens.

That is how it happens spiritually.
When one is born again, he is also adopted, justified, sanctified, forgiven, and a whole lot more. He is adopted at the same time that he becomes a child of God. Regeneration is not the only thing that happens at salvation!!
He is made a son of God, an heir and joint heir with Jesus Christ. And that happens when he is an "infant" spiritually speaking. When he is fully mature (at the resurrection) is not the time when he is adopted. It is an aspect of adoption.
Sons are adopted as children, not when they are about to die.
You have gone off the deep end here. Our spiritual life begins when we are new born babes at the new birth, the same time we are adopted. Our complete inheritance will be fully realized at the resurrection when our redemption is complete as we are given our glorified bodies.
Are you redeemed? Yes or no.
If so, then why do you wait for the redemption of your body?
The same is true with adoption.

My friend adopted a child. He did not give him a "promised resurrection." Just how does that fit in? It is absurd. The son came from a broken family, possibly where he was either forsaken by his "father" or even abused. He was about 7 years old. Now a loving Christian man adopted him. For the first time in his life he was able to call him "father," and understand what a "father/son" relationship meant. The word "abba/dad" meant more to him than his younger sister because he knew what it was like not to have one. He was adopted as a son, still early in his life--not a son on his deathbed. That is just unheard of. But that is what you are advocating or teaching.

Because you are sons. Pay attention to that.
You are putting an unnecessary time element there like many Calvinists do. Salvation is simultaneous. That is when one is saved he is regenerated, saved, justified, sanctified, and adopted all at the same time.
The only thing that comes first IMO is faith. The Bible teaches that you must believe in order to be saved.
We are made sons at the same time we became children of God through regeneration.
We were once a son, a slave to the bondage of the law and sin;
God took us and placed us as His son, His servant with the Spirit of Adoption into His family, his household.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Van]

Hi DHK,

1) Is my view based on one verse (Romans 8:23)? No. Recall Vines, recall the lexicon, recall the parallel Romans 8:19 and revealing as sons?
Son-placing refers to placing spiritually born anew individuals into their glorified bodies.

2) Moses was not adopted, his Egyptian "mother" claimed he had been born of her.

3) When one is born into a family, they are not also adopted. This is the fiction at the core of your mistaken view.

4) I have made my case, Paul would not use the same word to mean two completely different things, in the same letter, only eight verses apart. I have a verse that defines son placing as our promised resurrection, you have absolute no verse which says son-placing refers to being made a son. Note we were already sons when we received the Spirit of Son-placing into our hearts.