More than one poster has asserted we have been adopted, referring to us becoming children of God.
One poster claims we become adopted when we are born anew. No scripture was given to support this mistaken view.
Another poster claimed there are three aspects to adoption.
1) It was claimed Romans 8:15 referred to our being children of God because we had the Spirit of Adoption. Thus we had been adopted. This is utter nonsense. The Spirit of Adoption is simply referring the Holy Spirit which was given as a pledge to our future adoption. Our "sonship" comes from being born spiritually into God's family, not from adoption.
2) Adoption does indeed refer to our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming. This is the only actual way it is used which refers to receiving the full benefits as sons under the New Covenant. This view matches the Lexicons and the context of every usage.
3) Romans 9:4, referring to the Old Covenant adoption of Israel was mentioned to support the idea of many meanings. This usage is entirely non-germane to the topic.
Here is the simple fact, we came children of God when God put us spiritually in Christ. In Christ we are born anew. Thus children of God, not through adoption, but through spiritual rebirth. Now as spiritual children, we will receive our full benefits in the future, including the redemption of our bodies, and this future action Paul refers to as adoption.
The reverse etymological fallacy is to apply a modern meaning to a translated word, when the root meaning was the intended message. Thus to claim awarding full benefits at maturity according to the meaning at the time of writing should be replaced with the modern meaning of putting a person into a family is etymological error.
One poster claims we become adopted when we are born anew. No scripture was given to support this mistaken view.
Another poster claimed there are three aspects to adoption.
1) It was claimed Romans 8:15 referred to our being children of God because we had the Spirit of Adoption. Thus we had been adopted. This is utter nonsense. The Spirit of Adoption is simply referring the Holy Spirit which was given as a pledge to our future adoption. Our "sonship" comes from being born spiritually into God's family, not from adoption.
2) Adoption does indeed refer to our bodily redemption at Christ's second coming. This is the only actual way it is used which refers to receiving the full benefits as sons under the New Covenant. This view matches the Lexicons and the context of every usage.
3) Romans 9:4, referring to the Old Covenant adoption of Israel was mentioned to support the idea of many meanings. This usage is entirely non-germane to the topic.
Here is the simple fact, we came children of God when God put us spiritually in Christ. In Christ we are born anew. Thus children of God, not through adoption, but through spiritual rebirth. Now as spiritual children, we will receive our full benefits in the future, including the redemption of our bodies, and this future action Paul refers to as adoption.
The reverse etymological fallacy is to apply a modern meaning to a translated word, when the root meaning was the intended message. Thus to claim awarding full benefits at maturity according to the meaning at the time of writing should be replaced with the modern meaning of putting a person into a family is etymological error.