Does God adopt His own children?

I'd rather you tell us how Arminius died.

 

I wholeheartedly affirm the doctrine of adoption, and rejoice in it.

"In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved."

 

Salamander said:

"aware" of the difference beteween Roman catholocism and the empire of Rome?

So are you, or are you not? The evidence for the former is not, as yet, forthcoming.

Are yoy aware of the Doctrine of Adoption?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am. If you were, I doubt you would have even bothered asking the question at the top of this thread.

So explain away how Arminius died for us, ok?

No, I'd much rather hear you explain how Arminius died. That promises to be much more entertaining.

 

It is well known that those who mock cannot deal with the facts </font>[/QUOTE]Sal, maybe in your travels to Colorado, you can go to the library and check out the history section to see when Arminius was born and when he died in comparison to when Calvin died. You might find some interesting details that make you look quite foolish.

 

Well, I guess that since we can't expect Salamander to regale us with his extensive knowledge of the historical background of the Bible, it's up to me to explain why if he knew anything about a) Calvinism or b) first-century Roman culture, he wouldn't have asked the question at the top of this thread.

The Biblical doctrine of adoption does not in any sense contradict the Calvinist doctrine of election. In fact, they complement one another.

Paul writes:

In Roman society, extended families lived together under a male head, the paterfamilias. He was the absolute ruler of the family, and his authority even extended to life or death over disobedient family members. Effectively, the paterfamilias owned his family.

This is why Paul writes that the son was no different from a slave. Biologically he was the son, but he had no rights. He was unable to tend to his own business affairs. He was not allowed to leave the house except in the company of the paidagogos (what Galatians calls the "schoolmaster"), an educated slave that was responsible for his upbringing. Nonetheless, Paul writes, he is "the owner of everything." Not at present, but in spite of his current low status, he was his father's legal heir.

This legal standing would not last forever, however. There was a time in a Roman boy's life, typically between the ages of 14-17, when he came of age. He received the right to marry, to manage his own business affairs, and to participate in the civic life of Rome. He was entitled to put aside the clothing of his childhood and don the toga virilis, the pure white outfit that was the symbol of Roman citizenship.

The Romans believed in filial piety: that their ancestors watched over them and their property. Therefore, it was a disgrace for a man to die without an heir. If he had none, he might try to get himself adopted by another family, in which case his property would be passed to them, and in this way his ancestors would be satisfied. Better yet, he would adopt an heir himself, often the son of a lesser family, or a slave. There was a ceremony in which the adopted son was formally separated from his own family and legally bound to his adoptive father.

Adoption was not merely the bringing of an orphaned child into a welcoming family. It was a change of legal status, in which the son was formally recognized as the father's heir.

Even if the son as yet had no legal standing, the father knew that he was his son and that he would inherit his birthright. Similarly, as Paul writes to the Ephesians, God "predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will" (Eph. 1:5); "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will (1:11). At the appointed time we, as adopted sons of God, receive the inheritance for which we were adopted, and of which we receive a down payment now, in the person of the Holy Spirit, "who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory" (1:14).

Adoption does not contradict election, or vice versa. Adoption is but one way of explaining election.

 

"Just making sure Salamander doesn't miss the answer he was whining no one could give him" bump.

 

It is well known that those who mock cannot deal with the facts </font>[/QUOTE]Sal, maybe in your travels to Colorado, you can go to the library and check out the history section to see when Arminius was born and when he died in comparison to when Calvin died. You might find some interesting details that make you look quite foolish. </font>[/QUOTE]So as not to hijack the thread, I have begun a new thread about the demise of Jacobus Arminius here.

Joseph Botwinick

 

"Not letting this thread drop off the front page before Salamander has a chance to see his unanswerable question has an answer" bump.

 

Salamander said:

You really sound confused when put to the test.

If I'm the confused one, how come your entire lengthy post failed to interact with a single point I made?

 

I'm noticing a pattern here. I'm not trying to be funny or insulting, but perhaps Salamander has some autism? He seems to go off on totally unrelated tangents in threads, and they read like half a conversation he's having with himself. I apologize if something else is going on, but that's how it strikes me.

 

He seems to go off on totally unrelated tangents in threads, and they read like half a conversation he's having with himself.

No need to invoke autism when plain old "not listening to people" will suffice.

 

Salamander said:

haven't seen any point you made

Well, when you only see what you want to see, that is what happens.