Originally posted by Ransom:
Salamander said:
I have understood your arguement in favor of adoption "complimenting" election. I disagree. The Bible disagrees.
You then go to great lengths not to defend this assertion with actual evidence. No, you've gone to the great length to introduce a Roman tradition to delegate over Biblical authority and ONLY from a Calvinistic perspective and NOT from the Biblical perspective
God says there were those who are not a people He would call His people.
As a Calvinist, I agree. Then you cannot dogmatically adhere to the Calvinist's view of election
I firmly believe God knows them that are His.
As a Calvinist, I agree. And you should
I also firmly believe God calls them to repentence who WILL become His people.
As a Calvinist, I agree. Yes, you should, but God would have all men to come to repentence. For the ideal of adoption to compliment the Calvinist's view of election, the Scripture would have read, "God will have all the elect to come to repentence" , but the Scripture doesn't.
It is not the Lord who is slack concerning His promise, but men who count slackness.
Your ideal has holes.
I also believe the Bible when Jesus says "whosoever" and not as the Calvinists demand, "only-whososver".
As a Bible-believing Christian, I disagree.
Indeed, John 3:16 says that only whoever believes in Christ shall have eternal life. The others (the "whosoever won'ts") perish. No it doesn't, the Bible says that "whosoever believeth". "Only" isn't found in John 3:16
Calvinists believe quite firmly in John 3:16, that whosoever believes in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life. We simply do not illicitly import the philosophical notion of libertarian free-will into the definition of "whosoever." Ok, so now you're trying to delegate to the Lord that His will isn't free and must be purchased through vain philosophies of men.
I understand adoption in the light of Romanesque tradition, but you still fail to see that only the child adopted was adopted into another family, not his own. Just as God adopts from another family and not His own.
I did not fail to see this; in fact, I said this. (What was that I said earlier? "Well, when you only see what you want to see, that is what happens.") I just don't know about that, you seem to consistently fail of the understanding that all men are called to repentence but because of their STUBBORN will cannot be adopted due to their lack of repentence.
God has only One Begotten Son. To follow your rendition of the Romanesque tradition, God would first have "cut-off" Jesus from the foundations of the world.
This does not, in fact, follow my "rendition" at all. Sinners are adopted. Jesus is not. Ok, thank you for blowing your Roman tradition as applied to Biblical Doctrine straight out of the water!
I see Jesus as our example for all mode of conduct and practice of life. May be that you should do more study in the area of one bearing their own cross as in comparison to Jesus bearing His own Cross in relation to sonship?
It is your offering the ideal of adoption according to Roman tradition that incurred the mandate, but still, adoption according to the Roman tradition, the son was adopted into another family, not his own.
The adopted son was cast out of his legitimate family due to some offense made unto the head of household to cause him to be cut-off.
I'm sorry if I don't go into lengthy details to pinpoint the doctrinal truths for you.
I'd be happy if you just interacted with what was actually said, instead of posting half a conversation you are apparently having with an imaginary friend. You're the only one imagining anything
You cannot introduce heretical traditions as prooftext to doctrinal truth without the prooftext being exposed for it's heretical content.
Another assertion ("heretical traditions") made without evidence. Isn't there enough nonsense in the world without you inventing more of it? Ok. I am now glad you see the non-sense to Calvinism as exposed by the Doctrine of Adoption: one is not adopted beyond being cast-out or the parents being deceased, just as one is not open to marry until the decease of the first spouse or the betrothed.
You should study more Bible and less books.
God never adopts His own children, He births them in by and through the Gospel, for they were not His in the beginning
Ladies and gentlemen . . . The Amazing Self-Refuting Statement. My! You are too easily amazed. It was you that introduced Roman tradition as defined by a Calvinist in regard to your sort of lunatic explanation to the Biblical Doctrine of Adoption.
