Chapter Four - Israel's Sonship
"And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (Exodus 4: 22-23 KJV)
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." (Hosea 11:1 KJV)
"You are the sons of the Lord your God." (Duet. 14:1 English Standard Version)
These are among the leading texts of the OT that identify Israel as God's "son." Sometimes the singular "son" is used, when referring to the nation or commonwealth as a whole, but sometimes the plural "sons" is used when referring to individual "Israelites," to whom belongs "the placement of sons." The title or designation of "son of God" belongs to Israel and to Israelites. The above verses from the OT teach this and Paul affirms the same in Romans 9:4. The more frequent designation for the paternal relationship between God and his chosen people, in the OT, is "children of God" rather than "sons of God." On this point more will be said in following chapters.
So, just how did Israel become God's son? Was it by adoption? If so, then Israel was not begotten. Was it by being begotten? If so, then it was not by adoption. Or, was Israel, like many commentators affirm, somehow God's son by both birth and adoption? Where is the proof of it?
Many Bible interpreters and expositors will first presume that God adopts people to be his children, based primarily upon translating "huiothesia." as "adoption." Next, they will admit that adoption falls short of making a child "like" his adopted parents. This, they affirm, requires a birth. There are several serious flaws with this way of thinking.
First, why first presuppose adoption as necessary to birth? Second, if birth is first presupposed, what need is there of being adopted? Adoption would not, in such a case, give one additional identifying quality towards what it means to be a "child," "offspring," "son," "daughter," etc. Adoption cannot make the begotten child any more "like" his father genetically. He cannot become any more in "nature" a child to his father by being adopted. He cannot receive any more inheritance or ruling family authority by being adopted, for he has all this by virtue of birth.
Which comes first, birth or adoption in the scheme of most theologians who accept the idea of adoption as a way in which people become the children of God? If one insists that God first adopts and then gives birth, then why the birth? The reason can't be to make the adopted person a child, for he is already so by adoption. Such a view forces one who holds to this scheme to affirm that the new birth is not what makes one a child of God, for he is already such by adoption. That is simple reductio ad absurdum. This scheme leads to a slim view of what it means to be born of God. In such a scheme the birth becomes almost meaningless theologically. On the other hand, one who says that God first begets and then adopts has the problem of making adoption meaningless, for it does nothing for the child that the birth has not already done. Also, to say that God gives birth to take up deficiencies owing from mere adoption, begs the question.
Are there sons of God who were adopted but were never born? Are there some who are born but not adopted? Is the family of God so divided? As stated in the Introduction, going into error on the meaning of "the huiothesia" has given rise to sects who have so divided the family of God. After all, it is reasonable to assume that one who has been adopted may die before he is born, and so could not possibly be equal to other children of God who had been both adopted and born.
Those who accept that both adoption and birth are ways in which God produces children have many difficulties over which to overcome, as is evident. Is the person who is adopted but not born an equal heir to those who are both? Is the mere adopted child but half a child?
Was Israel Begotten or Adopted?
"Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And the LORD saw, and spurned, because of the provoking of His sons and His daughters." (Dt. 32:18-19)
In the opening verses cited in this chapter we saw that LORD God called Israel not only his "son" but also his "firstborn," or "first begotten." Here the Lord specifically says that he "begat," or gave birth to, the nation of Israel. Further, it is because of this "begetting" that Israel is God's child.
No where in the OT does the Lord affirm that Israel is his child by having been adopted. If so, would Israel not wonder who then was his real father, like most adopted children do? The adopted child may have grown to love dearly his adopted parents, but still, that child will know that they are not his real parents. He will, as a typical adoptee, possess a longing to meet his parents, assuming they are still alive. Even if dead, the child will still want to know all about his biological parents, and perhaps even desire to be more like them rather than like his adopted parents.
Also, though the title of "firstborn" may not always be held by the actual first born male child (for it has more than once been transferred to a younger brother), yet it was never conferred upon an adopted son, nor upon one who was not of the "seed" of the father. So, not only does God expressly say, in the above verse, that he had "given birth" to the nation (which excludes the idea of adoption), but the idea of birth is also strongly implied in the opening verses (that state that Israel was the Lord's "firstborn"). So then, where in the OT is adoption given as the reason for Israel being God's child or son? Will one impose such a model on it based upon a faulty translation of "huiothesia"? Upon a faulty interpretation of what Paul meant when he said that "the huiothesia" belonged to Israel?
To show how commentators err in their thinking when contemplating these facts, notice what Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says regarding "adoption":
(4) The adoption.—They are the theocratic people, the people whom God had, as it were, adopted to Himself, and taken into the special filial relation. (Comp. Hosea 11:1, “I called my son out of Egypt;” Exodus 4:22, “Israel is my son, even my firstborn;” et al.)
But, where did LORD God ever say that Israel was his son by a legal process of adoption? Certainly not in the verses cited. Did he not rather say that Israel was his son as a result of begetting?
In Matthew Poole's Commentary here is what is said:
"That begat thee, i.e. who hath adopted you to be his people, and hath showed as much care and kindness to you as if he had begotten you."
This is blatant error and goes against common sense. The text says that God "begat" but the commentary says that means that God had "adopted" them? Who can believe such interpretation? Not only this, the comment is further wrong in saying "as if he had begotten them," a denial of the fact stated in the sacred text.
Dr. John Piper, present day Bible expositor, wrote in "Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine):
"The biblical foundation for the act of adopting children is primarily in the New Testament rather than the Old. There are only three adoptions in the Old Testament (Moses, Esther, and Genubath, 1 Kings 11:20). Israel is called God’s son (Exodus 4:22; Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:6; Jeremiah 31:9; Hosea 11:1) but not until the New Testament is this called adoption."
It is good that Dr. Piper agrees that the act of adopting children was generally not known in the OT. It is good that he admits that God calling Israel his son was not known in the OT as "adoption." But, sadly, in spite of these admissions, he will nevertheless teach that Israel was the son of God by adoption, rather than by begetting. Further, he is wrong to affirm, as is being shown, that the NT calls the act of producing children of God "adoption." The only authority for such a view is based upon the five passages of Paul that have the Greek word "huiothesia." Further, Dr. Piper is wrong on the number of supposed "adoptions" in the OT. Others find more examples. But, as stated previously, none of the examples given were evidence of full formal adoption, nor the result of a Hebrew law or custom. As promised, these examples will be looked at in their place.
He also said:
"The deepest and strongest foundation of adoption is located not in the act of humans adopting humans, but in God adopting humans. And this act is not part of his ordinary providence in the world; it is at the heart of the gospel."
But, there is no where in the Bible that says that God adopts children. The only proof, being the five passages of Paul, is no proof at all, as has been shown, and will show yet further. Strange, however, is the statement of Dr. Piper that this doctrine, that affirms that God adopts children, is "the heart of the Gospel" when it is only based upon the five passages of Paul and is not mentioned in other places in the NT in connection with the defining elements of the Gospel. However, God begetting children is often mentioned.
You simply cannot have a misinterpretation of "huiothesia" to be the sole basis for such a doctrine, a doctrine which is foreign to both testaments. Further, you cannot base cases of informal or heathen adoptions, in the OT, as proof that it is another model of how God saves us. The adoption model, as has been shown, and will be shown even further, is at odds with the birth model. To affirm the use of the adoption model, with all its theological difficulties, on the basis that "huiothesia" means adoption is poor theology.
Dr. Piper admits that God did not explain the making of Israel his child by adoption. But, he says that this does not mean that this was not the reason or explanation. He says that justification for imposing the adoption model on the OT is because there is authority in the NT to do so. But, again, it is very weak authority to base it upon the five passages of Paul and upon the meaning of the Greek word.
He also said:
"God did not have to use the concept of adoption to explain how he saved us, or even how we become part of his family. He could have stayed with the language of new birth so that all his children were described as children by nature only (John 1:12-13, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”). But he chose to speak of us as adopted as well as being children by new birth. This is the most essential foundation of the practice of adoption."
You would think that the "doctrine of adoption" as understood by Piper and the majority of biblical commentators, would be as talked about in the NT as is the idea of being God's children by a spiritual birth. Yet, not only was adoption not a model in the OT to explain how Israel became God's child and son, so too the NT has no such model. Piper admits that "the concept of adoption" is a way for God "to explain how he saved us" and "how we become part of his family." This, as stated previously, is important because if the model of salvation is wrong, then what is illustrated and taught from it will not all be right. Notice also how Piper considers the "doctrine of adoption" to be "the most essential foundation practice."
Obviously the reasoning of Dr. Piper leads one to the idea that the birth model, which is the only one in the OT, and the one that he admits is the general NT model, is deficient, either in the model or in the reality it represents. The adoption model is, therefore, supposed to solve the deficiencies of the birth model. For obviously, the adoption does something that the birth does not do. But, what could that possibly be? If one is a child or son by birth, he cannot be made more of a child or son by adoption. He cannot be more of an heir by adoption than he already is by birth. In fact, there is nothing that adoption can give to an existing child that he does not already have from his father. So, as stated previously, adoption becomes meaningless. But, not only that, but full of contradictions and absurdities, as will be observed in the next chapter.
Further, Dr. Piper speaks of "the language of the new birth." Well, that is the language of both testaments, but the language of "adoption" is of neither.
He also said:
"This means that the status of being a son legally preceded the experience of the Spirit coming to give us the affections of sons. We are legally sons before we experience the joy of sonship. The object work of our salvation (two thousand years ago at Calvary) precedes and grounds the subjective experience of our salvation by the Spirit today."
As noted earlier, men who teach adoption as a model of salvation and of the way that God acquires offspring, as does Piper and the majority of commentators, will debate among themselves the ordo salutis relating to birth (regeneration) and adoption. Some will put birth before adoption, others, like Piper, will put adoption before birth. Either way, as we have seen, and will yet see further, there are serious flaws for them.
Dr. Piper believes one becomes "legal sons" first, before the experience of sonship in the new birth. He also looks at adoption from the standpoint of what God did at Calvary, at a time when the adopted did not exist, being the objective aspect of legal adoption procedure. In other words, believers became legally the children of God at Calvary. Of course, he will also say that in some respect adoption occurs in time when one repents and believes the Gospel. Further, he will even say that adoption is not complete till the resurrection. But, of all these wrong notions more will be said in the next.
He also said:
"Adoption brought us, and brings our children, the rights of being heirs of the Father."
Adoption is what brings "the rights of being heirs"? I thought birth is what did that according to the Scripture?
He also said:
"Consider too, that according to Romans 9:4, the people that God chose in the Old Testament, the Israelites, were adopted out of a terrible situation. “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.” But how was this adoption effected? Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” They were slaves in Egypt. But not only that, they were often also rebellious against God. “Our fathers, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wondrous works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled by the sea, at the Red Sea” (Psalm 106:7)."
God adopted Israel when he brought them out of Egypt? Then, they were not already his children before leaving Egypt? And, if they were his children before the Exodus, then what did adoption do for them?The text cited by Dr. Piper from Hosea 11:1 says that Israel went into Egypt, like Christ, a "child," but came out from Egypt a "son," someone who was at Bar Mitzvah age. There is no adoption in the verses cited nor in the entire OT that identifies the father child relationship between God and Israel as owing to anything other than to a birth relationship.
Adoption means to be "adopted out of a terrible situation"? By this reasoning it has nothing to do with becoming children but rather with deliverance, and this leads one to believe that one is adopted by God every time he delivers from a terrible situation.
He also said:
"Therefore, God went and took a son from Egypt who was both enslaved and rebellious. The pattern is set: adoptions does not just come from nice, healthy, safe, auspicious situations."
The same reply as above may be applied to these words. Dr. Piper finds no foundation in the OT for viewing the deliverance from Egypt as the time of Israel's adoption, but does admit that he finds "the language of" birth as that foundation.
Further, one does not know what precise model for adoption Piper is using to uphold his doctrine of adoption. Is he using the Roman or Greek model? If so, why does he constantly reason from facts that are purely English and modern, and not upon the former? But, more upon this in the next chapter.
He also said, in regard to Paul's statement that the huiothesia is yet future::
"This strikes us as strange. Aren’t we already adopted? Why does Paul say that we are “waiting for our adoption”? Yes, we are already adopted. When Christ died for us, the price was paid, and when we trust him, we are legally and permanently in the family. But God’s purpose for adoption is not to leave any of his children in a state of groaning and suffering. He raised Jesus from the dead with a new body, and he promises that part of our adoption will be a new resurrection body with no more disabilities and no more groaning. Therefore, what we wait for is the full experience of our adoption—the resurrection of our bodies."
The fact that Paul clearly and plainly says that "the huiothesia" is future would indeed strike as strange someone who teaches that it is something of the past, present, and future. Dr. Piper speaks of "that part of our adoption," and this is in keeping with how most commentators speak, for with them adoption is not one act, but several, and a process. Of course, such an idea begets (pun intended) numerous theological absurdities and glaring contradictions, as has been shown, and will be shown further.
He says that Christians are "already adopted" and yet the text says it is future. Paul does not say "waiting for the completion of the adoption (huiothesia)." Yet, like Piper, many will interpret "waiting for the huiothesia" as a present reality.
28 comments:
Even though most translations and commentators render “huiothesia” as ADOPTION, it might really be best to render this Greek verb as “SON-PLACEMENT” in all 5 instances in which it occurs, and to abandon or reject the concept of “adoption” altogether. Rather than the elect being “adopted,” why not understand “huiothesia” to mean that the elect’s status is changed from “children of the Devil” to “sons of God” by their deliverance out of Satan’s kingdom into the kingdom of God via their UNION WITH CHRIST, which occurred experientially when they exercised faith in Christ in regeneration. In the new birth, God not only imparted to them the NATURE OF SONS OF GOD, but He simultaneously CHANGED THEIR STATUS from children of the Devil to sons of God. This change of status to “son placement” is the true meaning of “huiothesia.” It make sense to abandon the whole concept of “adoption” in favor of “son placement.” Would that not eliminate all the problems of trying to figure out what is meant by “adoption,” whether from it is derived from a Jewish background or a Roman background? Maybe you are right. Maybe we are not “adopted” after all! Something to think about!
Name one person who has a child that is his by both birth and adoption. Name one person who adopted his own begotten child.
P.S. Huiothesia is a noun, not a verb.
After doing some research, I am inclined to agree with you that "son-placement" is the correct translation of huiothesia rather than adoption.
You are right. I meant noun. Thayer defines it as follows:
Parts of Speech
Noun Feminine
Huiothesia Definition
1. adoption, adoption as sons
1. that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations
2. the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God
3. the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven
Dear John: That is great. The only thing left is for you to see "when" the son placement takes place, which is when the birth children reach a state of perfection at the second coming of Christ and the day of their resurrection and glorification. This is the crowning event, their "coming of age," their Bar Mitzvah or Toga Virilis celebration. And, we are excited about it, which is the "spirit" we have in anticipation of that final end destiny.
Brother, I am continuing to research the issue of when the son placement (huiothesia) takes place, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and referencing the Greek in the relevant passages, as well as reading your material.
Brother, my comment is too long and was rejected. I will have to send it to you by email.
You stated: "The only thing left is for you to see "when" the son placement takes place, which is when the birth children reach a state of perfection at the second coming of Christ and the day of their resurrection and glorification."
I replied to your statement in an article published on the Internet titled "When Do God's Elect Become the Sons of God?" which can be read at the link below. Please read and respond. https://www.angelfire.com/va/sovereigngrace/WHEN.htm
I will try to read it today. But, when will you realize that "son placement" is not "son making"? If we are sons by birth, why do we need to become sons by adoption? Sons, in a biblical sense, denotes a mature child. Thus, one is a child by birth before he becomes an adult perfect "son" after the image of his Father.
Please read my article and respond to what I have written. I AGREE with you in that I clearly REJECT the concept of “adoption,” an error which is widely held by theologians and commentators. The KJV and other versions mistranslate "huiothesia" as adoption. It is properly translated “son placement,” which IS NOT FUTURE, but occurs in regeneration when we are born again. We are NOT waiting for the “son placement” to happen! I have PROVEN this from the 5 passages cited and interpreted, and in conclusion I correctly expounded the meaning of the "huiothesia" of Romans 8:23.
Brother, I will take what Paul said over what you say. Paul said we are waiting for the son placing. Further, we are fully made yet into the perfect "son." That awaits the resurrection as I have shown. Further, none of the passages you cite affirm that the son placing is past. If that were the case, then you would have a contradiction in scripture. I examine the five places where huiothesia is used and show that none of them speak of it as already accomplished.
correction - "we are NOT yet fully made into the perfect "son."
You wrote: “Further, none of the passages you cite affirm that the son placing is past.” Brother, you need to take a closer look at Romans 8:14-17, and my note on this passage. Verse 14 states EXPLICITLY that those who are led by the Spirit ARE [ἐστέ] (present tense) the SONS [υἱός] OF GOD. Tell me, HOW did we BECOME the sons of God if it wasn’t through SON-PLACEMENT when we were born again IN THE PAST?
Further, verse 15 confirms that they are the sons of God, stating that they HAVE RECEIVED (past tense) the Spirit of sonship [υἱοθεσία]. Tell me, HOW do we know that we HAVE RECEIVED the [υἱοθεσία] “son placement” if it is not because the SAME SPIRIT who leads us ALSO causes us to cry “Abba, Father”? That is so obvious, I don’t know how you could miss it!
Now you seek to avoid the obvious by denying that “pneuma” in verse 15 is a reference to the Holy Spirit, interpreting “pneuma” to mean “the spirit of” as in “the spirit of Christmas.” You seek to justify this interpretation because the definite article is missing before “pneuma.” However, please notice that the definite article is ALSO ABSENT in vs. 14, where “pneuma” is obviously a reference to the Holy Spirit.
The CONTEXT must determine the meaning of “pneuma” in vs. 15. Note that in vs. 14 “pneuma” is a reference to the Holy Spirit who leads the sons of God, and in vs. 16 “pneuma” is again a reference to the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit. There is NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON why “pneuma” in vs. 15 would not be a reference to the Holy Spirit.
(1) ROMANS 8:14-17
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are [ἐστέ] the sons [υἱός]
of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption [υἱοθεσία] , whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are [ἐστέ] the children [τέκνον] of God:
17 And if children [τέκνον], then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
NOTE: The Greek verb ἐστέ in vss. 14 and 16 is the second person plural present indicative of εἰμί. The Greek noun υἱός is translated as “a son” or “sons”. The Greek noun τέκνον is translated as “child” or “children.” Those who are led by the Spirit of God are NOW [ἐστέ, present tense] the sons [υἱός] of God. These individuals are said to have received the spirit of sonship [υἱοθεσία], whereby they cry, “Abba, Father.” It is important to note that both υἱός and τέκνον are Greek nouns used synonymously to describe the SAME INDIVIDUALS in these verses! While there are obviously progressive stages of growth in grace—from babes in Christ to maturity in Christ, the babes in Christ are just as much sons of God as those who have reached a higher level of maturity in the faith!
By the way, Galatians 4:7 confirms that the “pneuma” of Romans 8:15 is the Holy Spirit:
”And because YE ARE SONS [υἱός], God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
It couldn't be any plainer than that!
No, the definite article is absent in the verses except for verse 16. Also, as I pointed out in my writings, "spirit of bondage" is set in opposition to "spirit of son placing" and as the former denotes not a person so too the latter. As far as the citation in Galatians 4: 7, I have already answered that. Further, as I point out in my writings, sometimes "sons" denote one who is a birth son, but the general meaning of "son" is that of a mature son. Further, don't insult me by saying such and such is so clear and therefore I must be a fool for not seeing it. I could say the same of you in reference to Paul's affirmation that we are waiting for the son placing and that the son placing involves the resurrection and glorification (redemption) of the body. Further, you do not understand the concept of a futuristic present tense, a thing I have informed you about before, and you even admitted that such a tense exists.
Thanks for your import, but I stand convinced of all that I have written on this point. I am glad that you admitted you were wrong on the meaning of huiothesia.
It is amazing to me that you agree with me that "children" (KJV) in Ephesians 1: 4 (adoption of children) is a bad translation and should be "son placing of a son." But, then you at other times affirm that "son" (huios) is equivalent to "children" (teknon). If they are synonymous, then you should not condemn the KJV on this point, for you are in agreement.
Dear Stephen: I apologize for what appeared to you to be an insult. That wasn’t my intention, and I certainly don’t think you are a fool….misguided maybe on the subject at hand, but an intelligent guy who diligently studies the Word of God! I suppose what appears to be obvious to me doesn’t necessarily appear to be obvious to you, and vice-versa.
I am brushing up on my Greek, and it seems to me that THE PRESENCE OR THE ABSENCE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE isn’t always the determining factor in interpreting a passage. Equally important is the CONTEXT of the passage and RELEVANT SCRIPTURES WHICH BEAR UPON THE SAME SUBJECT. The surrounding context of Romans 8:15 strongly enforces the interpretation of πνεῦμα to be the Holy Spirit and not “the spirit of,” in spite of the fact that “the spirit (πνεῦμα) of fear” is used in the same verse. Note that πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit in the preceding verse 14 and that πνεῦμα is also the Holy Spirit in the succeeding verse 16:
ROMANS 8:14-17
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit [πνεῦμα] of God, they are [ἐστέ] the sons [υἱός] of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit [πνεῦμα] of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit [πνεῦμα] of adoption [υἱοθεσία] , whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit [πνεῦμα] itself beareth witness with our spirit [πνεῦμα], that we are [ἐστέ] the children [τέκνον] of God:
17 And if children [τέκνον], then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
[Note also that τέκνον is used in vss. 16 and 17 to describe the SAME PERSONS as SONS [υἱός] in verse 14. Obviously, τέκνον and υἱός are not synonymous Greek nouns, yet the apostle uses BOTH TERMS to describe the same people, whether they are mature sons or immature sons! The SONS OF GOD are also THE CHILDREN OF GOD in this passage!]
In addition to the CONTEXT enforcing the translation of πνεῦμα as the HOLY SPIRIT in Romans 8:15, as I pointed out earlier, the RELEVANT SCRIPTURE which clinches the translation of πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:15 is Galatians 4:7: ”And because YE ARE SONS [υἱός], God hath sent forth the SPIRIT [πνεῦμα] OF HIS SON into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” It is the same Holy Spirit which causes the SONS OF GOD to cry “Abba, Father” in Galatians 4:7 that causes them to cry “Abba, Father” in Romans 8:15! Do you see that?
Further, the vast majority of all English translations of Romans 8:15 translate πνεῦμα as the Holy Spirit. Go to the link below to confirm:
https://www.biblegateway.com/ verse/en/Romans%208%3A15
Stephen, after giving it some more thought, I have decided NOT to abandon the concept of adoption after all! The overwhelming majority of commentators and translations view and translate υἱοθεσία as ADOPTION, which of course also means "son placement." Maybe it should not be so closely identified with the human or Roman concept, but regarded primarily as a METAPHOR to represent a CHANGE OF STATUS: a change from the status of a child of the Devil to a child of God; a change from the status of captivity under the rule of Satan to deliverance out of his kingdom into the kingdom of God. There is no need to argue about which comes first, regeneration or adoption. Adoption and regeneration occur simultaneously, adoption being a change of status, regeneration being a change of nature.
As far as I am concerned, a difference of opinion on this should not be a test of fellowship! Let us both rejoice together at the MERCY OF GOD, that He would make HELL-DESERVING SINNERS like you and me His sons, His children! Can we at least agree on that, my Brother!
Your explanation says that being born of God does not change one's status!
Also, as I have told you before, to argue that you are right because the "overwhelming majority of commentators and translations" say the word means "adoption" is a logical fallacy, as I have recently written about. You even agreed that the majority are not always right. So, why do you now think this is sound logic?
Of course we can agree on that! But, you have not shown me why a person needs to adopt his own birth child. You say God has to both birth and adopt us but you have not shown why. Whoever adopted his own birth son? What did the adoption do that the birth did not do? You say birth did not change one's status as a child of God! I am sorry, brother, but that is a serious mistake in my mind. Further, why is Paul, in only five instances, the only one to speak of the huiothesia? All the new testament writers speak of the new birth.
Actually, all I am saying is what God has said in His Word. The adoption of sons ("son-placement" if you prefer) of Galatians 4:5-7 is a declaration of our status as sons of God, while the new birth of John 3:3-5 is a change of our nature from the nature of a child of the Devil to the nature of a son of God. Both occur simultaneously when we as God's elect are experientially united to the Lord Jesus Christ by faith.
Just as justification must not be confused with sanctification, so adoption must not be confused with regeneration. Justification and adoption are objective, forensic, judicial declarations of God; regeneration and sanctification are subjective and experiential.
The weakness of your position is evident to all unbiased minds because you will not answer my questions. So, I don't have time for this any longer. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.
Stephen, I don't have to explain why God does what He does. It is you who are questioning His method of dealing with His elect, not I. If God's Word says that He births us into His kingdom by regeneration while at the same time declaring us to be His sons by adoption (again, "son-placement" if you prefer), who are we to question it? Both are clearly set forth in the Word of God, and it is obvious that they are not the same thing. You are the one who is at odds with all the confessions of faith, good commentaries, and translations of the passages in question. I would be interested in seeing a list of credible theologians or commentaries who support your position of denying the adoption of the sons of God. If your position is that unique, it might be wise to reconsider.
Brother, you just used another logical fallacy. You should read my recent series on such. You are clearly begging the question when you say that the bible teaches that we are both born and adopted for becoming children of God. Yes, I do cite from a lot of others who believe as I do and the fact you ask shows that you have read very little of my lengthy affirmative case in both "waiting for the huiothesia" and on "adoption." Further, you keep repeating the argument that the majority is always right even though you agree that they are not. By the way, who is a "credible theologian"? I bet it is only those who agree with you. So much logical fallacies in your reasoning brother! Further, you agree that you cannot explain the incongruity but just accept the absurd. Brother, can God make a square circle or a rock bigger than he can move? You might say yes and add "yes, but I cannot question it if it says he can do so." Brother, you have lost the debate on this. Why not give it up? How have you proved my position wrong? You have not in the least. When you are ready to have a debate without the sophistry and fallacious reasoning, we can continue. Until then we will just leave this alone.
By the way, you insulted my intelligence again even though you previously apologized for doing so. You said "Both are clearly set forth in the Word of God, and it is obvious that they are not the same thing." So, I must be a fool for not agreeing with you, right? I agree that they are not the same thing. It is you that make them practically the same. How? Both make us sons of God. But, they are not the same. One is making us children of God, or birth sons, sons by generation, and the other places us before God as full grown perfected sons. The former is now and the latter is future.
Stephen, I did read all of your material on this subject, but I don't remember now who you quoted or referenced that supports your position that "adoption of sons" is not a valid interpretation of the passages we are considering. You are claiming that the whole concept of ADOPTION is not a Biblical theme, and that all of the commentaries, theologians, confessions of faith and translations are wrong.
So that I don't have to go back and read all of your material again, could you please just provide me with a list of names and publications of those who agree with you?
By the way, Brother, I think you are too easily offended. Just because I believe that something is clearly taught in the Bible that you don't agree with doesn't mean that I think you are a fool or that I am insulting your intelligence. Did you not just accuse me of "using another logical fallacy"? Did you not just accuse me of "begging the question"? Then you have the audacity to "insult my intelligence" by telling me that I "have lost the debate" and that I should "give it up"!! Do you see what I mean? However, I wasn't insulted by those statements. They just made me smile! I think we should be able to have a friendly discussion without giving or taking offense!
I think I cited from R.B. Jones, Trevor Burke, and W.E. Vine. The latter said this in his NT Words:
"In Ephesians 1:5 they are said to have been foreordained unto "adoption as sons" through Jesus Christ, RV; the AV, "adoption of children" is a mistranslation and misleading. God does not "adopt" believers as children; they are begotten as such by His Holy Spirit through faith. "Adoption" is a term involving the dignity of the relationship of believers as sons; it is not a putting into the family by spiritual birth, but a putting into the position of sons. In Romans 8:23 the "adoption" of the believer is set forth as still future, as it there includes the redemption of the body, when the living will be changed and those who have fallen asleep will be raised. In Romans 9:4 "adoption" is spoken of as belonging to Israel, in accordance with the statement in Exodus 4:12 , "Israel is My Son." Cp. Hosea 11:1 . Israel was brought into a special relation with God, a collective relationship, not enjoyed by other nations, Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 31:9 , etc."
If you will do your own research you will see that there are indeed others who share my view. But, again, the minority is not always right and I can give you other examples if you want. Take the case of the "weak brothers" of I Corinthians. The majority view says they are born again Christians. My view says they are not and it is a minority view. I could give other examples. So, please keep arguing that the majority is right. In my series on adoption I replied to all the argumentation for the majority view, from Packer, Piper, MacArthur, etc. and I addressed their arguments. That is the kind of debate that is needed.
Post a Comment