Millenium or Eternal Salvation

[TCGreek]

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.

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?

 

[TCGreek]

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.​

http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn21 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

http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftnref21Arndt, 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

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

2. What then are you talking about?

 

[TCGreek]

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.

 

[Allan]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

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.

That is not my quote.

 

[Hope of Glory]

That is not my quote.

What?!?

It most certainly is!

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

You cannot be adopted if you are already in the family.

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

 

[TCGreek]

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?

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).

Question for TC Greek: What is sonship?

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

 

[Hope of Glory]

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,

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:

and I have already giving my definition of "adoption."

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

 

[TCGreek]

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?

 

[Hope of Glory]

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

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.

 

[npetreley]

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

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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?

 

[npetreley]

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.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

.

 

[Amy.G]

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 game players, and you're so predictable.

.

Actually, it's scary.

 

[Hope of Glory]

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.