Millenium or Eternal Salvation

1. What you are denying is exactly what Paul is affirming (Gal.4:1-7).

2. "Huiothesia" is only used by Paul and has its Greco-Roman heritage behind it. It is the adoption as sons of those who were not so by birth.

3. Adoption signifies a placing into the family of God. What else can it mean in Paul?

 

1. I see that BDAG agrees with my understanding of "adoption?"

2. What then are you talking about?

 

1. What I see rather is that by the Spirit of adoption we are children of God and heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:15-17).

2. We cannot separate "placing into the family of God" from becoming "heirs of God." They are inseparable and occur simultaneously.

 

I agree with TC on this and think he is doing an excellent job defending the truth. However THAT was not the issue I brought up. Deal with post I gave and the issue first. Try not to side step it for something else. I dispise the tactic in which a Person asks a question or gives a explanation and what you get in return is "oh yeah, what about this or that". Deal with the subject first so proper dialog can be established, debated, and THEN move to another subject.

Please deal with the issue of kinsman redeemer first and problem that you have regardings it meaning. Please go back and read the Kinsman Redeemer post.

 

If we're placed into the family through adoption, then we're in trouble because John 3:3 tells us that in order to even see the Kingdom, we must be born from above. Or does it really mean "placed into the family from above", but God was just too inarticulate to say that?

Question for TC Greek: What is sonship?

 

What?!?

It most certainly is!

Here it is again, copied directly from post #51:

Unless you want to claim that someone hacked your account and posted in your name, you cannot claim that this is not your quote.

 

1. God is in no way inarticulate. The problem is not with God. The problem is with interpretation of the text.

2. Like many Scholars and commentators before me, I see "born from above" as a reference to the work of the Spirit in regeneration (vv. 6-8).

3. The Kingdom of God/Christ/Heaven is already here (Matt.12:28; Luke 17:21; Col.1:13).

4. We are now living in the mystery phase of the kingdom (Matt 13).

5. I understand "sonship" when applied to Christians as adoption, and I have already given my definition of "adoption."

 

We agree nearly 100% (with some clarification already spelled out in my discussion with JoJ on #3, and I would need you to clarify what you mean by "regeneration"), up until this last part:

So, why does someone who's already in the family need to be placed into the family?

 

1. Who says that someone is already in the family and then needs to be placed in the family?

2. Where did you get that from? Did you get it from my posts?

 

I gave the quote from 2 Tim just above this. I would have to search back through your quotes to see if you stated something similar, but I simply don't have the time to look back through 7 pages of this thread and umpteen of the others to see.

But, he claims that we are adopted into the family. (Which neither the grammar nor the context will support, but the modern usage of the word would imply this, if it were written within the last hundred years or so.)

The Bible claims that we are born from above into the family.

Why does someone who is born into the family need to be adopted into the family?

That's why my question on what you think sonship is. And, my reply to that is going to be lengthy, and I have two jobs that have to be finished today, and I have coaching still to do. So, it will be later.

 

It does NOT. It says we must be born from above. That's as far as the metaphor goes. It never says anything about being born from above INTO A FAMILY.

Unless you can show the scripture that says we are born from above into a family, your entire argument fails.

 

So, you're born without a family?

Is this talking about a test tube baby that is incubated in a machine?

 

No, it's not about being a test tube baby, so it must be talking about going into a woman's womb and being born again from there. Wait, Jesus corrected Nicodemus about that. Nicodemus thought it had to have a literal parallel with human birth...just like you want it to have a literal parallel with family birth. Wrong.

 

Precisely. It has a spiritual parallel; born from above, not adopted from above.

You reject one parallel and accept another. How do you pick and choose and decide which ones to accept?

Personally, I think we should accept them all.

 

LOL! You did it again, just as I say you folks always do. I contradict your analysis and you respond with, "Precisely!" We don't agree in the least, and you have nothing on which to stand, so you pretend I supported your viewpoint.

You are such (lousy) game players, and you're so predictable.

.

 

Actually, it's scary.

 

So, I say, "It's two different idioms".

You say it isn't, then you come around and say that "it's two different idioms".

Therefore we agree that it's two different idioms.

Of course, you then try to explain why they're really the same, which we disagree on.

But, we still agree that it's two different idioms.