Adoption

[DHK]

No verse says we are placed as sons when we are born anew. Not one.
But Romans 8:23 says we receive the promised resurrection when we are placed as sons. So, rather than adoption, son-placing refers to our promised resurrection.

If you are not a son now, you are not saved. It is that simple.
As to your assertion, it is false.

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

These verses speak in the context of adoption. Because we are NOW adopted sons, and not servants of bondage we are also heirs. We have an inheritance. And as an extra added bonus, what other privilege do we have?

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
--It is the adopted sons of God that can truly call the Father "Abba." This is something you fail to understand. We don't have to wait for the resurrection to have that intimate relationship with him. We can have it now, through our adopted status as "mature" sons.

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
--If you are not a son NOW, at the time of the resurrection you will not receive a glorified body; you will be cast out, rejected.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
--Four times in three verses is the word "son" used. Each time the word "uios" is used. The word" tekna" is the more general word used for child, children, etc. This word, uios, son, is the same word used in adoption or "son-placement."

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
--You are not led by the Spirit of God?? Do you have to wait for the resurrection? The word "uios" is used here.

Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Have I made my case yet?

 

[Van]

Folks, non-stop fiction does not alter biblical truth.

1) Are we sons of God because we are born anew? Yes. So the claim we must be adopted to become sons is silly nonsense. We must be born anew.

2) Does Galatians 4:6-7 speak in the context of adoption? Nope. They speak in the context of being sons. Notice Galatians 4:5 speaks that as sons we might receive adoption. (Again the word here is not adoption, in the Greek, it is son-placing.) As sons, we will receive the promised resurrection is the idea.

3) No matter how many times DHK asserts we do not become sons of God when we are born anew, it remains fiction.

4) No matter how many times the fiction is repeated, son-placing refers to placing a son, not "non-son placing to become a son."

5) We do not become sons because we are led by the Holy Spirit, but the opposite, we are led by the Holy Spirit because we are sons.

6) DHK has made no case. Here is his case.

a) When we are born anew, our new birth in Christ does not make us sons of God.
b) Only when God also adopts us, simultaneously with rebirth, are we made sons.​

Never mind so verse says we are adopted to become sons, but we become sons when we are born anew.

Here is Galatians 3:26, For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

And here is the DHK rewrite, for you are all sons of God through adoption. The fly in the buttermilk is that is found nowhere is scripture.

But as many as received Him (put their wholehearted faith in Christ Jesus) to them He gave the right to become children of God. And how was this right to be an heir bestowed? To those who were born, repeat born not adopted, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man but of God.

 

[DHK]

6) DHK has made no case. Here is his case.

a) When we are born anew, our new birth in Christ does not make us sons of God.
b) Only when God also adopts us, simultaneously with rebirth, are we made sons.​

​

Van, you are willing to accept that much more happens at the time of salvation, than simply regeneration. At that time:
One is regenerated and made a child of God,
Adopted and made a "mature" son,
Placed into the household of God,
Given an inheritance,
He becomes part of the bride of Christ,
He is sanctified
Justified,
forgiven,
eternally secured,
made righteous in the sight of God,
and much, much more.

You focus on just one thing--the new birth, being a child of God. Much more happens than the new birth. One of those things is being adopted and placed in the household of God as a mature son--placed as a servant, now free from the law to which formerly he was in bondage.

 

[Van]

Again DHK, you are knocking down your strawman, having nothing to do with the Biblical position.

1) When God puts us in Christ spiritually, several things happen. Not just regeneration.
2) We are made alive together with Christ. Thus to not be in Christ is to be spiritually dead, separated from God, and to be in Christ is to be alive, together with Christ.
3) We are not "son-placed" when we are born anew, but we are sons of God because we have been born into God's family.
4) As sons of God we are heirs to our inheritance.
5) Yes, when we are placed in Christ, we are born anew and we become part of the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ, the Church.
6) We are positionally sanctified, i.e. transferred in the kingdom of His Son, but then until we physically die, we undergo progressive sanctification where we strive to follow Christ and be like him and serve him. When Christ comes again, we undergo Ultimate Sanctification, where we are raised in glorified bodies, our promised resurrection to life.
7) When we are placed spiritually in Christ, we are baptized into His death, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ, where our body of flesh is removed, i.e. our sin burden, and we arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.
8) This removal of our sin burden, our body of flesh, justifies us, as all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven and so it is just as if we did not sin once born anew.
9) Yes, as a born anew believer we are protected, kept, for our inheritance reserved in heaven for us. Eternally secure.
10) Yes we are made blameless, holy and righteous.

 

[DHK]

Again DHK, you are knocking down your strawman, having nothing to do with the Biblical position.

Nope, not at all.

1) When God puts us in Christ spiritually, several things happen. Not just regeneration.

I am glad you finally realize this and agree with me. Adoption is one of those things.

2) We are made alive together with Christ. Thus to not be in Christ is to be spiritually dead, separated from God, and to be in Christ is to be alive, together with Christ.
3) We are not "son-placed" when we are born anew, but we are sons of God because we have been born into God's family.

When we are born of God we become the children of God "tekna."
The word for adoption υιοθεσια is made up of two words:
1. uios, meaning son.
2. τιθημι or tithemi meaning "to place."
The meaning of the word is "son placement," or to be placed as a son, according to it derivation. This happens at the time of our salvation.
Read Fausett

Adoption
Spiritual and individual. An act of God's sovereign grace, originating in God's eternal counsel of love (Eph 1:4-5; Jer 31:3); actually imparted by God's uniting His people by faith to Christ (Joh 1:12-13; Ro 8:14-16; Ga 3:26; 4:4-5). The slave once forbidden to say father to the master, being adopted, can use that endearing appellation as a free man. God is their Father, because Christ's Father (Joh 20:17). Sealed by the Holy Spirit, the earnest of the future inheritance (Eph 1:13). Producing the filial cry of prayer in all, Jew and Gentile alike (See ABBA) (Ga 4:6); and the fruit of the Spirit, conformity to Christ (Ro 8:29), and renewal in the image of our Father (Col 3:10). Its privileges are God's special love and favor (1Jo 3:1; Eph 5:1); union with God, so perfect hereafter that it shall correspond to the ineffable mutual union of the Father and Son (Joh 17:23,26); access to God with filial boldness (Mt 6:8-9; Ro 8:15,26-27), not slavish fear such as the law generated (Ga 4:1-7; Joh 4:17-18; 5:14); fatherly correction (Heb 12:5-8); provision and protection (Mt 6:31-33; 10:29-30); heavenly inheritance (1Pe 1:3-4; Re 21:7).

4) As sons of God we are heirs to our inheritance.
5) Yes, when we are placed in Christ, we are born anew and we become part of the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ, the Church.

Both of these happen at salvation. Adoption (son-placing), the right to an inheritance happens at salvation. If you were not adopted you could have no inheritance. Moses gave up his inheritance.

6) We are positionally sanctified, i.e. transferred in the kingdom of His Son, but then until we physically die, we undergo progressive sanctification where we strive to follow Christ and be like him and serve him. When Christ comes again, we undergo Ultimate Sanctification, where we are raised in glorified bodies, our promised resurrection to life.

Sanctification doesn't save. Neither does adoption. Both happen at the time of salvation.

7) When we are placed spiritually in Christ, we are baptized into His death, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ, where our body of flesh is removed, i.e. our sin burden, and we arise in Christ a new creation, created for good works.
8) This removal of our sin burden, our body of flesh, justifies us, as all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven and so it is just as if we did not sin once born anew.
9) Yes, as a born anew believer we are protected, kept, for our inheritance reserved in heaven for us. Eternally secure.
10) Yes we are made blameless, holy and righteous.

You are only kept for an inheritance if you have been adopted. If adoption did not take place you have no right to an inheritance.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, repeating the same mistaken view does not move the ball. Misrepresenting my views does not move the ball.

1) You claim I said or thought only regeneration occurs when we are born anew. But you provided no quote. This misrepresentation you have repeated.

2) As I said, we can find sources that we can quote which present our view, thus for you to cite so and so, and for me to cite such and such does not move the ball.

3) When we are born anew as sons of God we have the right of an heir. Spiritually born children do not need to be adopted or son-placed at birth. And no scripture says they are!

4) Positional sanctification saves. You can google it.

5) Son-placing will occur at Christ's second coming. No born anew Christ has been "son-placed."

6) 1 Peter 1:3-5 says only those God caused to be born anew, or reborn from above are protected and kept. Son-placing is nowhere to be found.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK, repeating the same mistaken view does not move the ball.

This should:

Fausset's Bible Dictionary
Adoption
The taking of one as a son who is not so by birth.
(I.) Natural: As Pharaoh's daughter adopted Moses; Mordecai Esther; Abraham Eliezer (as a slave is often in the East adopted as son) (Ge 15:2-3); Sarai the son to be born by Hagar, whom she gave to her husband; Leah and Rachel the children to be born of Zilpah and Bilhah, their handmaids respectively, whom they gave to Jacob their husband. The handmaid at the birth brought forth the child on the knees of the adoptive mother (Ge 30:3); an act representative of the complete appropriation of the sons as equal in rights to those by the legitimate wife. Jacob adopted as his own Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, on the same footing as Reuben and Simeon, his two elder sons (Ge 48:5). Thereby he was able to give Joseph his favorite son more than his single share, with his brothers, of the paternal heritage. The tribes thus were 13, only that Levi had no land division; or Ephraim and Manasseh were regarded as two halves making up but one whole tribe.

In 1 Chronicles 2, Machir gives his daughter to Hezron of Judah; she bore Segub, father of Jair. Jair inherited 23 cities of Gilead in right of his grandmother. Though of Judah by his grandfather, he is (Nu 32:41) counted as of Manasseh on account of his inheritance through his grandmother. So Mary, being daughter of Heli, and Joseph her husband being adopted by him on marrying his daughter, an heiress (as appears from her going to Bethlehem to be registered in her pregnancy), Joseph is called in Luke's genealogy son of Heli. By the Roman law of adoption, which required a due legal form, the adopted child was entitled to the father's name, possessions, and family sacred rights, as his heir at law. The father also was entitled to his son's property, and was his absolute owner. Gratuitous love was the ground of the selection generally. Often a slave was adopted as a son. Even when not so, the son adopted was bought from the natural father. A son and heir often adopted brothers, admitting them to share his own privileges; this explains beautifully Joh 8:36, compare Heb 2:11; or else the usage alluded to is that of the son, on coming into the inheritance, setting free the slaves born in the house. The Jews, though not having exactly the same customs, were familiar with the Roman usage's.

(II.) National: as God adopted Israel (Ro 9:4; De 7:6; Ex 4:22-23; Ho 11:1); compare Jer 3:19, "How shall I put thee among the children (Greek huiothesia) ... thou shalt call Me, my Father." The wonder expressed is, how shall one so long estranged from God as Israel has been be restored to the privileges of adoption? The answer is, by God's pouring out on them hereafter the Spirit of adoption crying to God, "Father" (Isa 63:16; 64:8; Ho 3:4-5; Zec 12:10).

(III.) Spiritual and individual. An act of God's sovereign grace, originating in God's eternal counsel of love (Eph 1:4-5; Jer 31:3); actually imparted by God's uniting His people by faith to Christ (Joh 1:12-13; Ro 8:14-16; Ga 3:26; 4:4-5). The slave once forbidden to say father to the master, being adopted, can use that endearing appellation as a free man. God is their Father, because Christ's Father (Joh 20:17). Sealed by the Holy Spirit, the earnest of the future inheritance (Eph 1:13). Producing the filial cry of prayer in all, Jew and Gentile alike (See ABBA) (Ga 4:6); and the fruit of the Spirit, conformity to Christ (Ro 8:29), and renewal in the image of our Father (Col 3:10). Its privileges are God's special love and favor (1Jo 3:1; Eph 5:1); union with God, so perfect hereafter that it shall correspond to the ineffable mutual union of the Father and Son (Joh 17:23,26); access to God with filial boldness (Mt 6:8-9; Ro 8:15,26-27), not slavish fear such as the law generated (Ga 4:1-7; Joh 4:17-18; 5:14); fatherly correction (Heb 12:5-8); provision and protection (Mt 6:31-33; 10:29-30); heavenly inheritance (1Pe 1:3-4; Re 21:7).

Answer Fausett. I am sure he has provided sufficient scripture for you to answer.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, not one of the verses referenced in part III say we are adopted when we are born anew, not one. Care to copy and paste even one that does?

For example, 1 Peter 1:3-4 does not mention "son-placing" but does say God caused them to be born anew.

John 1:12-13 days we are given the right to become children of God by being born of God, not adopted by God.

The Spirit of Promised Resurrection is given as a pledge to those who are already sons of God due to being born anew.

Bottom line, a whole clothesline of malarkey has been filled with verses that do not mention adoption, but if you actually read them, adoption is hung out to dry. Son-placing is mentioned in 5 places in scripture and every time our promised resurrection when Christ returns is in view.

Son-placing is used metaphorically by Paul to refer to when we are clothed in our glorified bodies at Christ's return, revealing us as sons of God.

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK, not one of the verses referenced in part III say we are adopted when we are born anew, not one. Care to copy and paste even one that does?

All of them do. When you read scripture with a bias (sometimes with total unbelief), then you refuse to be taught and can't see the truth no matter how well it is presented to you.
You have demonstrated that you are unteachable.

For example, 1 Peter 1:3-4 does not mention "son-placing" but does say God caused them to be born anew.

Regeneration doesn't automatically give you an inheritance.
That inheritance comes via "the adoption."
Therefore:
1 Peter 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
--Ergo: no adoption; no inheritance. Moses was adopted. Moses had an inheritance. He rejected it. Note also that Fausett agrees with this.

John 1:12-13 days we are given the right to become children of God by being born of God, not adopted by God.

What do you think "given the right" means?
The word "right" is usually translated "authority," the same word used in Mat.28:18.
It is the adopted "mature" son that has the authority as a son.
Look at Albert Barnes concerning John 1:12

Verse 12. To as many as received him. The great mass; the people; the scribes and Pharisees rejected him. A few in his lifetime received him, and many more after his death. To receive him, here, means to believe on him. This is expressed at the end of the verse.

Gave he power. This is more appropriately rendered in the margin by the word right or privilege. Comp. Ac 1:7; 5:4; Ro 9:21; 1Co 7:37; 8:9; 9:4-5.



Sons of God. Children of God by adoption. Cmt. on Mt 1:1. Christians are called sons of God--
1st. Because they are adopted by him, 1Jo 3:1.
2nd. Because they are like him; they resemble him and have his spirit.
3rd. They are united to the Lord Jesus, the Son of God--are regarded by him as his brethren (Mt 25:40), and are therefore regarded as the children of the Most High.



On his name. This is another way of saying believeth in him. The name of a person is often put for the person himself, Joh 2:23,18; 1Jo 5:13. From this verse we learn,
1st. That to be a child of God is a privilege-far more so than to be the child of any man, though in the highest degree rich, or learned, or honoured. Christians are therefore more honoured than any other men.



2nd. God gave them this privilege. It is not by their own works or deserts; it is because God chose to impart this blessing to them, Eph 2:8; Joh 15:16.



3rd. This favour is given only to those who believe on him. All others are the children of the wicked one, and no one who has not confidence in God can be regarded as his child. No parent would acknowledge one for his child, or approve of him, who had no confidence in him, who doubted or denied all he said, and who despised his character. Yet this the sinner constantly does toward God, and he cannot, therefore, be called his son.

The Spirit of Promised Resurrection is given as a pledge to those who are already sons of God due to being born anew.

This is your wording; your philosophy. It is not found in the Word of God.

Bottom line, a whole clothesline of malarkey has been filled with verses that do not mention adoption, but if you actually read them, adoption is hung out to dry. Son-placing is mentioned in 5 places in scripture and every time our promised resurrection when Christ returns is in view.

The bottom line is: You can't refute what he said, therefore you call it malarkey and just ignore it.
Of five places the word "adoption" is used, four of those times relate to adoption at the time of birth, and only one refers to a small aspect of the adoptive process at the time of the resurrection. But that is just one part, one small aspect of the adoption. You make it the whole. That is your error.

Son-placing is used metaphorically by Paul to refer to when we are clothed in our glorified bodies at Christ's return, revealing us as sons of God.

No. The word "adoption" literally means "son-placing." Not only does it have that literal meaning in our culture, but also in the Greek and Roman Cultures. Not only does it have that literal meaning the very etymology of the word means "son-placing."

υιοθεσια huiothesia

υιος huios + τιθημι tithemi = υιοθεσια

or

uios + tithemi = uiothesia = son-placing (adoption)

The very word adoption means son-placing and it takes place at infancy or very early childhood more than ninety percent of the time. Occasionally one might adopt an adult. But that is outside the boundary of what is normal.
If you are not adopted, you will not receive a glorified body. It is that simple. Adoption must have already taken place. It takes place at the time of salvation.

 

[Van]

Hi DHK, you can copy and paste till the cows come home. 1 Peter 1:3-5 says God caused us to be born anew, but does not mention adoption. The passage also does not mention regeneration, being made alive. It mentions being born anew or reborn from above.

In John 1:12 it reads He gave the power (or right) to become sons of God. Then, DHK, you and your source, add "by adoption." But that is not in the text, or any other text. You cannot add to scripture and expect anyone to accept it. You say I am unteachable, well it sure seems one of us is!! I do not accept teaching by adding to scripture.

The word "adoption" is only found in translations, the Greek word actually refers to son-placing where a natural born child at maturity is declared an adult member of the family in a ceremony where the son puts on a new robe signifying his placement into an adult of the family status. Paul uses this to illustrate God putting us into glorified bodies, at Christ's second coming.

 

[DHK]

The word "adoption" is only found in translations, the Greek word actually refers to son-placing where a natural born child at maturity is declared an adult member of the family in a ceremony where the son puts on a new robe signifying his placement into an adult of the family status. Paul uses this to illustrate God putting us into glorified bodies, at Christ's second coming.

Your argument may be logical, but it is not rational.
Here are some examples.
1. There is no such word as "baptism" in the NT. The word "Baptidzo" is immersion, and should always be translated as such.
2. There is no such word as "church" in the NT. The word "ekklesia" is "assembly, and should always be translated as such.

There are other examples, but those two will suffice.
You say:
There is no such word as "adoption" in the NT, The word "uiothesia" is "son-placed" and should always be translated as such.

The fact is that we do have an English word, as well as a Roman and Greek word for adoption. The word "uiothesia" is the Greek word for "adoption" and it was a common practice then, when a family would give their child to a wealthy family to be adopted by them for all parties involved:
The wealthy family would gain an heir.
The son would gain a good education and an inheritance.
The poor family would have the satisfaction that their son would be well cared for--something that they were unable to do. (In essence that is what happened with Moses). This is a common practice is almost every culture. It is called adoption, meaning "son-placing" and takes place when the person is a small child or infant.

 

[percho]

Would it be fair and or correct to say in adoption one is placed in the bosom of the other?

 

[Van]

Thanks DHK, I agree with you to a degree. I think assembly is the best translation choice, rather than church, and I think immersion is the best translation choice. However, we have all these people who learned the meaning of church and baptism, and so to undercut them has costs many are unwilling to pay.

There are many translation choices, lets call them the traditional translation choices, which according to modern scholarship are not the best. For example "one of a kind" is what is meant in John 3:16, but folks howl when you take only begotten Son out of the Bible.

So market forces pull for keeping the traditional translation choices, even though they corrupt what we believe was God's actual message.

 

[Van]

Hi Percho, it would be fair to say "adoption" is never mentioned in the NT. Imagine if the translators had chosen "commencement." A ceremony where a child is declared an adult, thus placing a child of the family into adulthood in the family. And this pictures us, at Christ's second coming, being clothed in our glorified bodies.

Poor translations and vague translations result in providing support for corrupted doctrine. We should oppose that with every fiber of our unglorified bodies.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Percho, it would be fair to say "adoption" is never mentioned in the NT. Imagine if the translators had chosen "commencement." A ceremony where a child is declared an adult, thus placing a child of the family into adulthood in the family. And this pictures us, at Christ's second coming, being clothed in our glorified bodies.

Poor translations and vague translations result in providing support for corrupted doctrine. We should oppose that with every fiber of our unglorified bodies.

Neither is the word trinity, but we can see that doctrine written all over in both OT/NT!ond

Again, truth is that we are either children of satan, or children of God, and those of us who are saved and been redeemed are RIGHT now known and called as sons/daughters of God, as God adopted us un the beloved!

IF we were not adopted, have not been saved, and that adoption has to wait until Second Coming, then Paul and John and all the Apostles either were wrong, or else lied to us!

 

[DHK]

Hi Percho, it would be fair to say "adoption" is never mentioned in the NT. Imagine if the translators had chosen "commencement." A ceremony where a child is declared an adult, thus placing a child of the family into adulthood in the family. And this pictures us, at Christ's second coming, being clothed in our glorified bodies.

Poor translations and vague translations result in providing support for corrupted doctrine. We should oppose that with every fiber of our unglorified bodies.

But the word isn't commencement. It is "son-placing" or "son-placement," or very accurately defined as "adoption," which the placing of a son from one family into another family is. That is what our English word defines it as. It is a good English word that translates "uio-thetimi" correctly. You are denying this but it is not true. It is a proper and good translation.
We cannot simply "transliterate" words.
A transliteration is how we come up with deacon from "diakonos."
The translation of the word is "servant" which diakonos means.
However in Romans 1:1 Paul uses the word servant and the word is doulos.
There the word doulos means slave, even bond-slave. There is more than one word translated servants, so perhaps the translators chose deacon in 1Tim.3 and translated servant instead of slave in Rom.1:1. It is our duty to find what the words really mean.
The accurate definition in Rom. 8:15 is "adoption." That is the best translation there is. Now what does "adoption" mean. What does it involve, both in English and in the Greek and Roman cultures of the day? That is the task to find out. Your conclusions in this matter are wrong.