Millenium or Eternal Salvation

It's good to see you back, brother! Sounds as if the Lord's been busy with you!

 

How about this:

I challenge anyone to find a biblical example of someone outside the family being redeemed. We could be wrong. All you have to do is show us an example.

 

The Jews needed a Kinsman Redeemer as required by the OT Law. Ruth married a Jewish man and therefore by Jewish law became a Jew. What does that matter? That is different than 'our' adoption into the family as Gentiles.

However, if I'm understanding the ME crowds argument correctly;THIS (kinsman redeemer) is what comes into play AFTER salvation which places us into the family. Right or wrong?

If it is right then you have a problem with what a Kinsman redeemer does:

Since the goel [kinsman redeemer] among the Hebrews was the nearest male blood relation alive, we find certain important obligations which he had to proform FOR and TOWARDS his next of kin.

(1.) If any one from poverty was unable to redeem his inheritance, it was the duty of the kinsman to redeem it (Lev. 25:25,28; Ruth 3:9, 12).
---(A.) this places the ME crowd into a bit of a quandry. It states according to scripture that if the kinsman can not fulfill (redeem) all that is necessary for him to claim his rightful inheritance (poor or not enough to procure what should be rightfully his), the kinsman does it ON THEIR BEHALF. Not after they were judged unable but AT the time the account must be given

---(a.) IOW - where we fall short in this life and our walk when we stand to give account of what we have done and what we owe - He makes up the difference and it is He who establishes our position based on His Redeeming work.

(2.) The other is that He was also required to redeem his reative who had sold themselves into slavery (Lev. 25:48, 49).

---(A.) He brings them out of bondage back into the full family standing and by implication backinto the fullness of their inheritance they forfieted in slavery.

This appearently sets to naught the belief that if we did not do enough, or work enough good works or suffer enough in Christ that we will fall short in some way and still have a debt to be paid; thus the seperation in outer darkness. But according to the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer, HE pays our balance that we may enjoy the fullness of our inheritance because of the fulness of HIS WORK.

HOWEVER:
If that is wrong, please explain.

 

So by this, do you believe that being adopted into the family and being born into the family are the same thing? How is this possible?

II Timothy 2:12 should clear this up my friend.

 

Well, I agree that the context is set in verse 8, but you're wrong about it being our forever and ever salvation.

 

I guess that maybe we all need to run down to the courhouse real quick and adopt our own children, if they're the same thing. Just to make sure, you know.

 

If someone is adopted into the family do they receive a different inheritance than the one who is born into the family?

What is your point about being adopted vs. born into the family? Is there a difference?

 

I'm sure HoG will respond more detail, but in general yes there is a difference. Adoption as used in Scripture is not about being placed into the family, but rather a showing of approval for a family member. The word is son-placing.

All saved people are children of God, but not all children are viewed as sons. Only children that are approved will be placed as sons. Those that are disapproved will not.

 

Do we really need to cover this again?

"huiothesia" is position within the family, not being placed into the family. It has to do with acceptance and approval. It's talking about sonship. It's from huios (son) and thesia (a setting or placing): the placing one in the position of a son.

The same is true of the English word "adoption". The primary meaning of "adoption" even today in the English speaking world is "acceptance" of "approval", such as the adoption of a new law. My great-grandmother came home one day and said, "I liked Dois Fay's biscuits so much I adopted her recipe!" But, using "adoption" to mean placing into a family has only come into major use in the last 70-80 years or so, and at the time the KJV was translated, the word for "place into a family" was "afiliation". The complete English etymologies of both words were posted here, as well as the defnition from Princeton and Oxford. (But, of course, Princeton and Oxford don't know what they're talking about when it comes to English.)

 

Then perhaps you can tell me how someone can be placed into position of authority within a family if they are not already part of the family, since that's what placing someone into the position of a son is.

 

I agree it doesn't make sense, but you're the one who made the claim.

 

As Gentiles, we have been adopted into the family of God in the sense that we were grafted in to the natural tree (the Jews including the promises made to them). But as an individual, I am "born" into the family of God by my faith in Christ and the new "spiritual" birth.

 

1. Paul says it best, "he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will" (Eph 1:5).

2. The decision was made in eternity for "us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ."

3. In space and time, our world, we had to hear the gospel and with the work of the Spirit and our faith in Christ we become sons of God (Rom 8:9, 14-16; John 1:12, 13; 1 John 5:1).

 

1. "huiothesia" is used in the NT five times and never with that meaning you have assigned to it. It is like saying that one can know what a butterfly is by taking apart the words, "butter" and "fly," and there you have your meaning.

2. Rather, "huiothesia" has to do with being placed into the family of God and enjoying all the full rights of what it means to be in the family of God (Gal 4:1-7, isn't that the obvious meaning of Paul?).

3. I like Packer at this point: "The adopted status of believers means that in and through Christ God loves them as he loves his only-begotten Son and will share with them all the glory that is Christ's now (Rom. 8:17, 38-39).

 

Here's your quote. It was on the same page.

huiothesia is placement within the family; it's placement into the position as a son. (A child is anyone who is an offspring.)

You claim that a person from outside the family is placed into this position of authority within the family, but that's not the way the Bible lays it out.

Even a person who is not born into the family, such as a servant, can be placed into the position as a son, but a person outside the family cannot.

"Adoption" meaning placement into a family was not widely used by itself until the last few years, and even now, it's a secondary meaning to the word. (It's also primarily an American usage of the word, although it is gaining popularity in the rest of the English speaking world.) The word huiothesia cannot mean "place into a family", no matter how much you try to twist and distort it to fit what you think it really should mean.

 

The BDAG disagrees with your interpretation of it, and AFAIK, it's always used :

ⓐ of the acceptance of the nation of Israel as son of God (cp. Ex 4:22; Is 1:2 al. where, however, the word υἱοθ. is lacking; it is found nowhere in the LXX) Ro 9:4.​

ⓑ of those who believe in Christ and are accepted by God as God’s children (Iren. 5, 12, 2 [Harv. II 351, 2]) with full rights τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολαβεῖν Gal 4:5; cp. Eph 1:5. ἡ διʼ αὐτοῦ διδομένη υἱοθεσία AcPl Ha 2, 28 (s. app.). The Spirit, whom the converts receive, works as πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας Ro 8:15 (opp. πν. δουλείας=such a spirit as is possessed by a slave, not by the son of the house). The believers enter into full enjoyment of their υἱοθεσία only when the time of fulfillment releases them fr. the earthly body vs. 23.—Harnack (s. παλιγγενεσία 2); TWhaling, Adoption: PTR 21, 1923, 223–35; AWentzel, Her 65, 1930, 167–76; ADieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie 1903, 134–56; LMarshall, Challenge of NT Ethics ’47, 258f; WRossell, JBL 71, ’52, 233f; DTheron, EvQ 28, ’56, 6–14; JScott, Adoption as Sons of God ’92. S. Lampe s.v. υἱοθετέω.—New Docs 3, 17; 4, 173. DELG s.v. υἱός. M-M. TW. Sv.​

cp. cp. = compare, freq. in ref. to citation fr. ancient texts

al. al. =alibi (elsewhere), aliter (otherwise), alii (others)

LXX LXX = Septuaginta, ed. ARahlfs, unless otherwise specified—Lists 2, beg.

Iren. Iren. = Irenaeus, Haereses, II a.d.—List 5

Harv. Harv. = WHarvey; s. Iren.—List 5

AcPl Ha AcPl Ha = Acts of Paul, PHamb—List 1

app. app. = appendix, apparatus (when ref. to marginal text-critical information, esp. in N.)

opp. opp. = opposed to, opposite

fr. fr. = from

PTR PTR = Princeton Theological Review—List 6

Her Her = Hermes, Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie—List 6

NT NT = New Testament

JBL JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature—List 6

EvQ EvQ = Evangelical Quarterly—List 6

Lampe Lampe = GL. ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon—List 6

s.v. s.v. = sub voce (under the word, look up the word)

DELG DELG = PChantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque—List 6

M-M M-M = JMoulton/GMilligan, Vocabulary of Greek Testament—Lists 4, 6

TW TW = Theologisches Wörterbuch zum NT; tr. GBromiley, Theological Dictionary of the NT—List 6

Sv Sv (at the end of entries)=HSieben, Voces—List 6

Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000, S. 1024