From Burkitt & Read's Kehukee Ass. History

LEMUEL BURKITT, JESSE READ. NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, October, 1803 (Burkett-Read History)

"Shaking hands while singing, was a means (though simple in itself) to further the work. The ministers used frequently, at the close of worship, to sing a spiritual song suited to the occasion, and go through the congregation, and shake hands with the people while singing; and several, when relating their experience, at the time of their admission into church fellowship, declared that this was the first means of their conviction. The act seemed so friendly, the ministers appeared so loving, that the party with whom the minister shook hands, would often be melted in tears...many times had a powerful effect. Giving the people an invitation to come up to be prayed for, was also blessed.

The ministers usually, at the close of preaching, would tell the congregation, that if there were any persons who felt themselves lost and condemned, under the guilt and burden of their sins, that if they would come near the stage, and kneel down, they would pray for them. Shame at first kept many back, but as the work increased, numbers, apparently under strong conviction, would come and fall down before the Lord at the feet of the ministers, and crave an interest in their prayers. Sometimes twenty or thirty at a time. And at some Union Meetings, two or three hundred would come, and try to come as near as they could. This very much engaged the ministers; and many confessed that the Lord heard the prayers of his ministers, and they had reason to hope their souls were relieved from the burden of their sins, through the blood of Christ. It had a powerful effect on the spectators to see their wives, their husbands, children, neighbors, &c., so solicitous for the salvation of their souls; and was sometimes a means of their conviction. Many ladies of quality, at times were so powerfully wrought on, as to come and kneel down in the dust in their silks to be prayed for. The act of coming to be prayed for in this manner had a good effect on the persons who came, in that they knew the eyes of the congregation were on them, and if they did fall off afterwards it would be a disgrace to them, and cause others to deride them; this, therefore, was a spur to push them forward."  (pg. 76, 77)

"Let the politician with all his maxims of policy; the deist with all his deistical reasoning, endeavoring to invalidate the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures; the soldier with all his arms and ammunition, see if any, or all of them together, can by all their art, sophistry, or power, or even by the force of gunpowder, effect such a reformation in the morals of men. Can they do what the simplicity of the Gospel of our dear Lord Jesus has done? Can they make those who hate God and religion, with all their hearts love him and his service? Can they make men at variance and enmity love one another? This the Gospel has done in this revival. In some neighborhoods, persons at enmity with each other, and when they met would not speak to one another, after receiving the benefits of the Gospel’s gracious influence, could take each other in their arms with the greatest pleasure, and cause an unbelieving world to say, Behold how these Christians love."  (pg. 81)

CIRCULAR LETTER.

The Messengers of the several Baptist churches belonging to the United Baptist Association, formerly called the Kehukee Association, met at the, Flat, Swamp meeting-house, in Pitt county, North Carolina, October, 1791:

To the several churches in union with this Association, send greeting:

And since Almighty God, in carrying on this glorious work, is pleased by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe, it therefore becomes necessary that there should be a number of preachers or ministers of the Gospel. And according to the direction of our last Association, we proceed, in our circular letter, at this time, to make a few observations on the necessary support or maintenance of Gospel ministers; although we are very sorry that there should be the least occasion to write or speak upon that subject." (pg. 82)

"After the removal of Elder White, the church labored under great coldness and barenness (sic) until about 1801, when the church consisted of not more than twenty members in full fellowship. About this time, Elder Burkitt on a circuit of meetings attended this place. He preached, prayed, and sung, but no good effect seemed to attend his labors. At the close of the meeting, he at last told them, “that if there was any person in the congregation who desired to go to heaven or be converted, if he would come up to the pulpit, he would pray to the Lord for him.” No person came for some time. At length a young man came, with tears in his eyes, and requested his prayers. — Some months after, this young man was converted and related his experience at a Union Meeting, Warren, Ready Creek, and declared this was a mean in the hand of the Lord for his conviction and conversion; and said he was a thousand times obliged to the man for praying for him; and ten thousand to the Lord for putting it in the mind of his minister to do so. Soon after this a revival took place in this church, since which about one hundred have been baptized; and sometimes as many as twenty-four at one time. The church now contains one hundred and twenty members."  (pg. 124)

In view of all these citations concerning the beliefs and practices of the Kehukee Baptists from 1765 to 1801, how can any Harrdshell claim that those first Kehukee Baptists were Hardshell in belief and practice?

The Hardshell Cult's "Key"

Under an article titled "Conditional Time Salvation," my father wrote the following in opposition to Elder Thomas Mann's sermon against "time salvation" and Elder Bradley and the "liberal movement" (emphasis mine):

"I want to quote two paragraphs from a letter that Elder Sam Bryant wrote to Elder Lasserre Bradley back last January 14th. He was questioning Elder Bradley in this letter about his denying Conditional Time Salvation. Here is what he wrote.

'You have said that Primitive Baptists tend to put verses in different buckets. I agree, we do. How would you suggest we rightly divide the word of God? You seem to put every verse in one bucket and that is the eternal bucket!! The only way to rightly divide the Bible is to understand that many verses teach that Eternal Salvation is alone by the Sovereign Grace of God and many other verses teach that salvation from the evil in this world is the responsibility of the child of God and is conditional on his obedience to the commands of God. (Otherwise you would have passive obedience). Understanding Time Salvation is the other key that unlocks so much of the Bible. The Bible teaches that our relationship with God is unconditional but that our fellowship with Him in this life is conditional on our obedience to His word. Jesus said "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Notice that Jesus did not open the door for fellowship! He knocks. We have to open the door.

Surely we must have the Grace of God to be able to obey God and without it we couldn't. We need to go to the throne of grace daily to find grace to help us. However, we have to choose to use the grace God gives us to live a Christian life unless we receive it in vain. (2 Cor. 6: 1) If in fact the Grace of God is going to supply what God's word requires in our life on this earth, then we would end up with a modified version of absolutism."

In this article father said "I certainly agree with Elder Bryant."

Though there is much that I could address in Elder Bryant's letter to Elder Bradley, yet in this posting I simply want to focus on these statements:

1) "Understanding Time Salvation is the other key that unlocks so much of the Bible," and
2) saying that such understanding is "The only way to rightly divide the Bible."

One of the evidences of a cult is their claim to having special revelation, a knowledge of truth, or truths, that no other group possesses. Often this special knowledge is spoken of as a "key" which unlocks truth that is locked to others. Further, this "key" to the Scriptures becomes the one defining characteristic of the group, a thing that they pride themselves in. To have this special key, which none outside the group has, makes one feel special, a truly "elect of the elect." Ironic is the fact that it makes those who have the "key" feel to be "elite," and yet, often, the members of the group are anything but elite, socially or economically. It makes them feel extra special when there is in reality nothing special about them.

I warn everyone who confronts this damnable Hardshell Hyper Calvinistic doctrine of "time salvation" to beware of this "key" that supposedly makes all clear and plain. Why? Because it does not unlock the truth, but rather locks it out.

I know Elder Bryant. I was in his home years ago with my father. Spent a few days with him. I also met him at other times. I wrote him several years ago and challenged him to debate hardshellism. He never responded. You judge for yourself why he did not respond. You judge for yourself why others will not respond or take up the challenge. I know why. I hope people who are going on the Internet to check out the "Primitive Baptists" will also discover why.

If I died tomorrow, I am happy with what I have made available to anyone interested in those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists" and have been historically known as "Hardshells." God can lead inquiring souls to our writings, as he has already in the past. I have put these writings out there as a servant of God. I have done my duty and will continue to do it as long as I am able.

Hardshell Silence Speaks Loudly

Since 2011, when this blog was created, I have had only one Hardshell to come forward to challenge the things I have written against the Hardshells. I admired him for doing it (Jason Brown), though he stopped his interaction right when things were getting good. One can only guess why he chose to quit, but I suspect it was a result of his losing the debate and because of pressure being put on him by other Hardshells. Now, what does this silence say about the Hardshell people? Thousands of Hardshells have no doubt read our writings here and yet, they keep quiet. What do you think?

Hardshell Oddballs

According to the dictionary, an "oddball" is "a person or thing that is atypical, bizarre, eccentric, or nonconforming, especially one having beliefs that are unusual but harmless."

I do not say that every Hardshell is an "oddball," but I firmly believe that many of them are such. When one begins to speak of their peculiarities, they will often respond by saying "the Lord's people are called a peculiar people." (Titus 2: 14) They do the same thing when one points out the general ignorance of the Hardshell people, biblically speaking. They will say "the apostles were also ridiculed for being 'ignorant and unlearned.'" (Acts 4: 13) Of course, neither of these passages bear on the point being made here. First of all, the peculiarity of "the Lord's people" is not what one only finds among the Hardshells, unless of course, they and they only are "the Lord's people." Secondly, the verse in Acts does not lend credence to the attitude that Hardshells in general have towards religious education.

Now, I got my college degree in Sociology, and I tell you that the Hardshell people would make a fascinating study in that field! I also spent many years with the Hardshell people. I know their idiosyncrasies. Many of them are just weird, hard to figure out. They have a group psyche and general spirit and it is an oddity indeed. They have their own Hardshell "worldview." They see things through their unique denominational spectacles and are blind to everything else.

I have been wanting to say this in the past, but thought I might as well make a short listing of it now. Who can doubt that the "kookiness" of the Hardshells is evident in the way they have historically interpreted the Scriptures? Their history is filled with "wacky" interpretations of the Bible.

Perhaps I can enlarge upon this in the future and give some concrete examples of what I am talking about.

Waiting For The Huiothesia VII

Chapter Seven - Why "huiosethia" is not "adoption"

Numerous reasons have been given thus far for rejecting the teaching of "adoption" as the way people become the children of God and enter his family. In this chapter we will show other reasons why "adoption" is not only not the teaching of Scripture, but also why "adoption" is a mistranslation of "huiothesia."

First, the word in dispute has "huios" connected with "thesia." But, if "adoption" were meant, then why "huios" (sons) rather than "daughter" (Greek "thygatēr") or "child" (Greek "nekron") or "infant" (Greek "paidion") or "minor child" (Greek "nēpios")?  People today do not generally adopt older boys, and never adopt grown men, as the Romans did. Further, people today rarely adopt their own kin, but the Romans did this often. The point is, if simple western adoption were in view by translating or interpreting "huiothesia" as "adoption," then it would be simply placing or adoption of "children" or "babies."

The translation of "huiosethia" in Ephesians 1:5 as "adoption of children" (KJV) is false and generally corrected by later English translations. The Greek compound word is not made up of "teknon" and "thesia" but "huios" and "thesia." But, as we will see, the KJV errs often in this regard, translating "teknon" as both "child" and "son," when it suited them, and often translating "huios" as both "child" and "son" when it suited them. But, more will be said on this important point later. But, for now, let me add this information about the KJV as regard their translation practice in regard to "teknon" and "huios."

teknon (child) is translated "son" in the following passages: — Matthew ix. 2, Matthew xxi. 28; Mark ii. 5, xiii. 12; Luke ii. 48, Luke xv. 31, Luke xvi. 25; John i. 12; 1 Corinthians iv. 14, 17; Philippians ii. 15, 22; 1 Timothy i. 2, 18; 2 Tim. i. 2, ii. 1; Titus i. 4; Philemon 10; 1 John iii. 12. It is also translated "daughters" in 1 Peter iii. 6.

huios (son) is translated "child" in the following passages: — Matthew 5:9, 45, Matthew viii. 13, Matthew ix. 15, Matthew xii. 27, Matthew xiii. 38, Matthew xvii. 25, 26, Matthew xx. 20, Matthew xxiii. 15, 31, Matthew xxvii. 9, 56; Mark ii. 19; Luke i. 16, 5:34, Luke vi. 35, Luke xvi. 8, Luke xx. 34, 36; John iv. 12, John xii. 36; Acts iii. 25, Acts 5:21, Acts vii. 23, 37, Acts iv. 15, Acts x. 30, Acts xiii. 10, 26; Romans ix. 26, 27; 2 Corinthians iii. 7, 13; Galatians iii. 7, 26; Ephesians ii. 2, 5:6; Colossians iii. 6; 1 Thessalonians 5:5; Hebrews xi. 22, xii. 5; Revelation ii. 14, Revelation vii. 4, Revelation xii. 5, Revelation xxi. 12. It is also translated "foal" in Matthew xxi. 5.

This was not good translation practice. Far better it would be if English translators would translate more literally and keep their private interpretations out of the practice. The KJV translators, as all other English translators, should have always translated "teknon" as "child" and "huios" as "son."

Some bible scholars question whether a meaningful distinction exists in Paul’s use of the Greek words for “child” (Greek "nekron") and “son” (Greek "huios"). In this and the next chapter we will see that the biblical writers, in either testament, did not loosely use these terms, nor other terms denoting people at various stages of life. They did not use such words interchangeably and without significance, as some scholars and translators affirm.

If a NT writer used "huios" or "teknon," for instance, it was done on purpose, with meaningful distinction. I realize that sometimes your average person, in every day language, does not always speak so precisely and with care in the use of such terms. But, though this is generally true among the imprecise conversation of the common populace, whose grammar is often incorrect, it is not true among those who write more correctly and definitively. Neither the writers of the Hebrew OT, nor the writers of the Greek NT, used these terms loosely, as the KJV translators and some other scholars have done.

In this chapter we will begin a look at the various Hebrew and Greek terms used in Holy Scripture to denote persons at various stages of life and then make use of this information to help us decide whether the biblical writers used such terms interchangeably and without purpose, as some scholars affirm. We will see that Paul had a reason for speaking of "son" placement rather than "child" placement.

But, before doing that, let us observe other reasons why "huiothesia" cannot mean adoption. The first of the five passages with "huiothesia" that we looked at was Romans 9:4 where Paul says that "the huiothesia" belonged to those who were "Israelites." Several arguments were offered in regard to that passage which showed that it did not teach that "huiothesia" meant "adoption." Now is a good time to look at its use in Ephesians 1:4.

Predestined To Final Salvation

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,.." (Eph. 1:3-5 kjv)

In the Greek text "predestined us unto adoption (or son placement") is written this way:
"προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν."

The KJV translators gave us "the adoption of children" for the translation of "huiothesia." Let it be kept in mind that scholars on the meaning of this word are interpreters, and their interpretations are not always correct. To see how scholars disagree in interpretation and translation all one has to do is to consult the various English translations and notice the differences in judgment on various passages.

Some think that the way to decide which translations are correct, or most correct, is to view all the translations and see which is the majority or consensus interpretation (translation) and then accept such on that basis. This might be good in most cases, but it cannot be made a rule for the Bible interpreter, for sometimes the majority of scholars are in error and the truth is with the minority.

As stated previously, there is no justification in either the use of "children" or "adoption" in translating the word "huiothesia" into English. Literally, "teknon" means "child" and "huios" means "son." No Greek scholar on the NT disagrees with this. Whatever kind of "placing" or "placement" is in view, in the compound word, it is qualified by "huios" and not "teknon."

To translate "huios" as "children" in Eph. 1: 4 and other places (as does the KJV and some other English translations) and then claim justification for doing so on the basis that the interpreter thinks that these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and without a meaningful distinction in the NT, is not good translating. I would ask such translators - "Why not just translate literally and not impose your presupposition (about no meaningful distinction in the terms)?" If the text has "huios" and that means "son," and is distinct from "teknon" that means "child," then why lead people astray by doing as they have done? Thankfully, at least many modern English translations do at least omit "children" in favor of "sons," although many of them still keep the word "adoption." They will translate as "adoption of sons" or "adoption as sons," or in some similar manner.

Another fault with most English translations of "huiothesia" is how they will give a plural translation to the word in spite of the fact that it is singular. Thus, instead of "sons" or "children," it would be "son" or "child." One wonders why this is so. It seems to be a minor symptom of the translating and interpretation problem concerning this unique word. Yet it is a little revealing. Translating literally it would be "son placement," using the singular rather than the plural. Literally the text should be translated into English as "having predestined us to son placement."

Noticeable also is the absence of the definite article "the" in the passage, though the KJV and some other English translations add it to the text. Just as it was wrong to translate "teknon" as "son," and "huios" as "child," so it is wrong to add the definite article when it is absent in the Hebrew or Greek text, or to omit it when it is present. In Ephesians 1:5 it is not "predestined to the huiothesia," but "predestined to huiothesia." So, the KJV got these things wrong with their translation of this passage.

1. Used the word "adoption" to translate "thesia."
2. Used "child" to translate "huios."
3. Used the plural "children" for the singular "huios."
4. Added the definite article "the" when it is noticeably absent in the text
5. Used the unnecessary preposition "of" in "adoption of children"**
**some other translations use "as" for "of"

The purpose of the absence of the Greek article is to describe, define, characterize, and qualify, as any NT Greek grammar will confirm. There is a difference in saying "huiothesia" and "the huiothesia," just as there is in saying "the God" and "God" in John 1:1. The absence of the definite article does not automatically infer the indefinite. So, just as "God" in John 1:1 does not mean "a god," so "huiothesia" does not mean "a son placement." As stated previously, of the five passages where "huiothesia" is used only two omit the definite article. This is one and the other is Romans 8:15. On the other hand we saw its existence in Romans 9:4 and talked of its significance in that passage.

Another point that disproves the idea that "son placement" means "adoption of sons," in addition to the several already offered, in this and previous chapters, is the fact that what God has predestined is the end, first and foremost, and then the means to that end.

Many people erroneously connect "the huiothesia" with the beginning of the Christian life, with being adopted or born again in conversion, but this is not the case, for several reasons. Recall that Dr. Packer believed that Ephesians 1: 5 was one of three places where "adoption" or "huiothesia" was shown to be a present reality. However, it is clear that it is not a present reality as yet; And, if it is not a present reality, but a future event, then no one is yet adopted (if adoption be the correct translation).

In the text "huiothesia" is the object of God's eternal purpose, or predestination, in regard to the elect, and would therefore represent the "end" of his design in regard to them. Therefore, final salvation in the eternal state, as perfected sons of God, and sons of the resurrection, must be in view. It must be the end when the elect are all made fully like, in both soul and body, their heavenly Father. Being converted in time is not the end purpose of God in soteriological predestination, but a means to that end. Salvation and sonship, or being made fully like the Son of God, who is himself the express image of the Father, is the culmination or accomplishment of the divine decree.

Divine acts, like rational human acts, are for the attainment of some predetermined end. The purpose of the end is first in view before the determination of the means. What is first in intention is last in execution. It is therefore called the "final cause." The end purpose and design for the elect is that they be be made like the Son of God and enjoy family life with God the Father forever. Notice these words of the Apostle in regard to the decree of election and predestination.

"God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2:13-14 KJV)

Notice the end and the means to the end. The end is "salvation" and "obtaining of the glory," which is yet mostly future. The means of this salvation are sanctification of the Spirit and faith via the gospel. But, as sanctification and faith are incomplete, being progressive and linear in the Christian life, so the salvation must be what follows it. In this verse we have two of Aristotle's "four causes." The "first cause" goes back to "the beginning," which beginning is in the mind of God, or "before the foundation of the world." The "final cause" looks forward to the end contemplated. It is purpose realized and brought to fruition. We also have "efficient" and "instrumental" causes in the verses. The Spirit is the efficient cause of sanctification and the gospel and the truth are means or instrumental causes.

In Romans chapter eight, where two of the occurrences of "huiothesia" are found, Paul mentions predestination as in Ephesians chapter one. In Romans 8:29 Paul wrote "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."

Both these statements, "predestined unto the huiothesia" and "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" look to the final state of saints in glory, in eternity to come, when they will be fully made into the image of Christ, who is the image of the Father.

Said Dr. MacArthur in a conference on Ephesians (SEE HERE - Emphasis mine):

"There's also more in it than that. The second half of the word — the first is "pre." The second half of the word is "destined," and that sort of takes you to the end. And the end of it is I think best summed up in Romans 8 that we are: "Predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." So that God's elective purpose was to the glorification, that is the full and final salvation, of those whom He chose."

This is correct. The end of God's decree of salvation is to have a family of sons and daughters, from among fallen humanity, who have been made divine, holy, and perfect. Therefore, since MacArthur agrees that the salvation unto which the elect are chosen is final salvation, then the "huiothesia," the thing predetermined, is also connected with final salvation and "glorification." As MacArthur says, it is the final "destiny." God has predestined the "end" or completion of his purpose in salvation.

In "The Doctrine of Election, Part 1" (SEE HERE - emphasis mine) Dr. MacArthur said:

"And in the discussions that I had with you regarding that, I said that the end is determined by the beginning. Our salvation is secure to the end because our salvation was predestined in the very beginning to be completed.

And we remember that Romans 8 makes a monumental and very clear statement to that regard. when in Romans 8 the apostle Paul writes, “For whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son.” That is, all whom God predestined will become conformed to the image of his Son in eternal glory. And thus “whom he predestined he called, and whom he called he justified, and whom he justified these he also glorified.” And so, we said that the great undergirding foundational truth that secures our future is God’s decree in eternity past. It is the fact that we are chosen for final salvation that makes our salvation secure."

Of course, again this is correct, and if so, then it is wrong to say that Ephesians 1: 5 shows that "adoption" or "huiothesia" is a present realization. Rather, it is in harmony with Paul in Romans 8:23 where he said "waiting for the huiothesia, i.e., the redemption of the body." Thus, these things are yet to be realized, and are not a present possession.

It is interesting that this is one of the verses that supposedly puts adoption or huiothesia in the present experience of Christians, rather than in the future. As we have noted already, Paul put "the huiothesia" in the future when he said that it is what Christians are yet waiting for, and is to take place with the resurrection of the body. Yet, this passage also puts son placement in the future, for God has predestined us to final and complete salvation. We might just as well translate Paul's words as "chosen to salvation in heaven in the eternal state," and "predestined us to final son placement" and "predestined to be made into the full likeness of the Father and the Son at the second coming."

Predestined To End Time Son Placement

Putting Ephesians 1:4-5 together with Romans 8: 23 we have "predestined us to son placement and to redemption of the body for which we are waiting."

Of course God predetermines the ways and means for effecting his end purposes and designs. But, he first sees the end desired and contemplated and then sets about determining the means to that end. The text has all kinds of references to what is mostly yet future for the believer in Christ. He has stated that God had chosen the believer in Christ before the making of the universe "unto salvation." But, salvation is only begun now and is not yet completed. Only at the second coming and resurrection do saints fully realize the totality of this salvation. But, which is the end and which is the means? Is initial salvation in conversion the end of being chosen or the means to the end? Is the end of salvation not yet future and the thing intended?

Paul does speak, in Ephesians one, of present blessings of salvation. But, the emphasis is rather on the eschatological end of God's purpose in salvation and redemption. When Paul says "God has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in  Christ," he does not mean that the believer, at the time of his conversion and birth, received all these blessings. Even though Paul speaks in the past tense, saying "has blessed us," yet he does not infer that all these blessings are a present reality for the believer.

God the Father "chose us in Christ" and "blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ" in eternity past in his decrees and in the covenant between the Father and the Son. Some of these spiritual blessings are a present reality, but the chief of them are yet future, and this fact is often stated by the NT writers in their addresses to Christians. In the context of the three occurrences of "huiothesia" in Romans chapters eight and nine, Paul, though he speaks of present blessings of salvation, nevertheless lays the stress on the future, on what is not yet realized by the Christian, being a matter of hope and expectation. In that context he put "waiting for the huiothesia" along with waiting for "the revelation of the sons of God," and for "the redemption of the body," and with the "glory that shall be revealed in us." All these are future events and all connected with "huiothesia" or "son placement."

Another reason for seeing the "huiothesia" of Ephesians 1: 4 as not something realized in the present mortal life of the elect, but something still yet future, is due to what is meant by the words "before him" in "chosen us to be holy and without blame before him." When is it that believers are "before him" in the fullest sense? Is it not in the glorious eternal state? Is that not when God himself will dwell with them and they live in his presence? Is that not the end purpose?

Consider also the fact that the choice is to be "holy and blameless," to be "without defect," before the Lord. Though Christians have a degree of holiness now, and are fully justified now, yet they are not yet in themselves, or in their characters, "blameless" or morally flawless. The Greek word translated "blameless" is "amomos" and means "without spot or blemish morally," or "faultless, unblameable."

Is Elder Sonny Pyles Well?

I have discovered that both Sonny and his wife have been ill this year. Does anyone have any news? I do hope and pray for their well being.

Waiting For The Huiothesia VI

Chapter Six - Entering the Family of God

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God." (Eph. 2:19 kjv)

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named..." (Eph. 3: 14-15 kjv)

In the above passages reference is made to the "household" and "family" of God. Who are the members of this family and how did they become so? Are there members of the family who have been adopted? Or, is it the case that they have all been born or created into it? Further, what family model is in view by the Apostle? The Jewish, Greek, or Roman? How are the ideas about family different or the same in each of these cultures? In what ways is NT theology built upon the family model? These questions will be addressed in this and in the next few chapters.

These verses, along with others to be mentioned in this chapter, are further proof that those who are members of the "household" or "family" of God are such who have been born into it, and not because they have been adopted. Further, this is a Hebrew or Jewish "house" and "family," denoting that only those who are of the "seed" or "lineage" of Abraham, and who are by birth "Israelites," are its members.

Some might wonder why so much insistence is being put on the idea of being born into the family of God since those who believe in adoption also believe in being born again. The reason for this is because 1) being a child of a parent by birth excludes the idea of being adopted by the same parent, and 2) those who promote adoption as a model often say that it is adoption that makes one a member of the family of God, that makes him a child of the father, that makes him an heir, and 3) this is often stated without any reference to entering the family by birth. In other words, most promoters of the adoption model do not say "we enter into God's family and become his children by birth and adoption," but will simply say "we enter God's family through adoption."

It has already been shown how both cannot be true. To insist that both are true leads to absurdities, no matter who makes the assertion. I have great respect for those who hold to the adoption model, men like MacArthur, Piper, whom I have already cited and corrected, and J. I. Packer (to be cited). Yet, on this doctrinal point, they are wrong, as we continue to see.

J.I. Packer wrote in "Knowing God" (see as cited HERE - emphasis mine)

"‘Father’ is the Christian name for God. Our understanding of Christianity cannot be better than our grasp of adoption...But this is not to say that justification is the highest blessing of the gospel. Adoption is higher, because of the richer relationship with God that it involves."

These words echo those cited in previous chapters by MacArthur and Piper. Their doctrine of adoption, which is foreign to the Scriptures, is made into the very heart of the Gospel. MacArthur thought it was superior to being born a child. Here the learned Packer says that the doctrine of God adopting children into his family is the "highest blessing of the gospel," higher than even the doctrine of justification. He says that it is the doctrine of adoption that creates "the richer relationship with God" than any other thing. Like MacArthur and Piper, Packer affirms that adoption is superior to the birth method of entering into a family, doing more for the adoptee than for the natural child. Who can believe it?

Packer also wrote:

"Adoption is a family idea, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as father. In adoption, God takes us into His family and fellowship, and establishes us as His children and heirs." (J.I. Packer, Knowing God, pp. 186-188)

So, according to Packer, how does one enter the family of God? Does he say it is by being born into it? Does he not rather say that one is taken into the family of God by being adopted? Does he affirm, in this statement, that both birth and adoption makes one a child and heir of the Father? Further, if God births his child, what need is there for adoption? What does adoption do that birth does not do? Further, when Packer says that adoption is what "establishes us as His children and heirs," does he not deny that this was done in birth? If one is adopted, and already a child and heir by that method, then how can a subsequent birth (an absurdity) be said to make one a child and heir?

In the section "What Our Adoption Shows Us," Packer wrote:

"The word adoption (the Greek means "instating as a son") appears five times, and of these occurrences only three refer to the Christian's present relationship to God in Christ (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5). Yet the thought itself is the nucleus and focal point of the whole New Testament teaching on the Christian life."

It is good that Packer did not say that the Greek word "huiothesia" meant "adoption," but says it means "instating as a son." If the Greek word means "instating as a son," then where is the idea of adoption in those words? Do people speak of adoption in those terms? Further, why "son" and not "child"? Why "son" and not "daughter"?

He states a falsehood, as did MacArthur, when he says that the adoption metaphor is "the nucleus and focal point of the whole New Testament teaching on the Christian life." The doctrine of adoption is what presents the clearest view of how one enters into, and maintains, a familial relationship with God as Father? I thought divine birth and parental influence of the Father were the models of this family relationship? Besides the five verses where "huiothesia" is falsely translated as "adoption," where is adoption taught throughout the New Testament? Where did Jesus, Peter, James, John, etc., speak of  being made children of God by adoption? They all spoke of birth as being the only way that people become the children of God.

Further, Packer is wrong to affirm that three of the five passages with "huiothesia" refer to a present experience, and yet nothing in those passages say such. In fact, as previously observed, Paul is very clear when he says that Christians are "waiting for the adoption," and identifies it with the time of the "redemption of the body." But, more on that in upcoming chapters.

Packer also stated:

"Not is it only in the four Gospels...The Epistles, too, are full of it. We shall be drawing our evidence chiefly from the Epistles as we move on now to show the truth of our adoption gives us the deepest insights that the New Testament affords into five further matters: first, the greatness of God's love; second, the glory of the Christian hope; third, the ministry of the Holy Spirit; fourth, the meaning and motives of what the Puritans called "gospel holiness"; fifth, the problem of Christian assurance."

Again, this is just not the case. There is no mention of the adoption in the Gospels. Jesus did not teach it as the manner in which people become the children of God. Further, there is no mention of it in the Epistles, excluding the five verses of Paul with "huiothesia." Some may try to read adoption into some verses where "huiothesia" is not used, but it is not because it is already in the verses.

Packer implies that the doctrine of God adopting children gives "the deepest insights" into the New Testament teaching on how one enters the family of God. He affirms that this doctrine enhances God's love, as if more love were involved in adopting a child than in giving birth to a child. He affirms that the Christian hope, holiness, assurance, and ministry of the Holy Spirit, are all greater because of adoption than a child who was born. Who can believe it?

Packer also stated:

"In the ancient world, adoption was a practice ordinarily confined to the childless well-to-do. Its subjects, as we said earlier, were not normally infants, as today, but young adult (sic) who had shown themselves fit and able to carry on a family name in a worthy way. In this case, however, God adopts us out of fee love, not because our character and record show us worthy to bear his name, but despite the fact that they show the very opposite. We are not fit for a place in God's family; the idea of his loving and exalting us sinner as he loves and has exalted the Lord Jesus sounds ludicrous and wild-yet that, and nothing less than that, is what our adoption means."

It would have been good had Packer, who is generally thorough in his writings, had told us specifically what model of adoption was used by the NT writers and borrowed from "the ancient world." He does not identify adoption as an ancient Jewish practice, as some try to do. He seems to clearly refer to either Roman or Greek adoption practice. But which? Though similar, they were not exactly the same.

What is striking about the above citation is the fact that there is contradiction in it. He first says that it was the near universal practice of the ancient Gentile world for heirless men to adopt mature sons and that the choice of which sons to adopt was based upon the fitness of the son to be adopted. This is what MacArthur taught, and which is against his Calvinistic and grace teaching. But, Packer does not handle the difficulty by creating another difficulty as does MacArthur. Packer is saying that the adoption of the ancients, which is a model of how God acquires children, is really not a model! The adoption model Paul supposedly is using (Roman) will not work in picturing how and why God saves and acquires sons and heirs. This fact should have caused Packer to realize the defect in the adoption model itself. Look at the dissimilarities, not the similarities (as was done in the previous chapter).

1. Roman men adopted because they were without male heirs. (but God adopts not for this reason)

2. Roman men adopted mature men to become heirs, and not infants nor girls. (but God does not do so)

3. Roman men adopted the most qualified of young men to be adopted. (but God does not do so)

4. Roman adoption did not make the young man a birth child in the image of the new father (but God's method of adoption does this)

It seems clear then that the adoption model is really no model at all. How could it be with so many dissimilarities? So, why do men continue to teach adoption theology when it is so foreign to Scripture?

Packer also stated:

"Adoption, by its very nature, is an act of free kindness to the person adopted. If you become a father by adopting a son or daughter, you do so because you choose to, not because you are bound to. Similarly, God adopts because he chooses to. He had no duty to do so. He need not have done anything about our sins except punish us as we deserved. But he loved us; so he redeemed us, forgave us, took us as his sons and daughters and gave himself to us as our Father."

When he speaks of adoption being in "its very nature" "an act of kindness to the person adopted," he must know that this was not the reason why Greek or Roman men adopted. He seems to be using a modern adoption as the model, and not the Roman or Greek. Yet, he says that the model he is using is "ancient" and unlike modern adoptions. So, it is like it, and not like it. In the previous chapters it was shown how Romans and Greeks adopted for their benefit and not for the chief benefit of the one adopted.

What he is doing now, after having shown how adopting the worthy is not a model of how or why God adopts, showing how there is dissimilarity in that respect, is showing how there is supposed similarity in the fact that both the Roman and Divine reasons for adoption are the same, that is, they are both acts of kindness towards the son chosen for adoption. But, even in this he has failed, for it has been shown that there was little kindness as the reason for ancient adoptions in the Gentile world. With all such discrepancies in the model, then why plead for it?

Packer also stated:

"Nor does his grace stop short with that initial act, any more than the love of human parents who adopt stops short with the completing of the legal process that makes the child theirs. The establishing of the child's status as a member of the family is only a beginning."

Notice how again Packer is clear in laying the sole reason for being in the family of God, or being children and heirs of God, in "legal process" that has several stages and acts involved in it. Notice too that he does not say that being "born of God" is the initial act that makes one an heir and child of God, or brings him into the divine family, but says it is the legal act of adoption! But, there may be a legal process in adoption, but one never becomes an adoptee until the final act! Yet, in the above, Packer makes the first "initial act" in the legal process to be what makes one an adoptee. Surely anyone can see the further inconsistency in this.

Packer, ironically, in another section of his famous book, also stated:

"The gift of sonship to God becomes ours not through being born, but through being born again." 
(Chapter Nineteen - "Sons of God" SEE HERE)

I say he has here hit the truth, but it contradicts what he has said in the above citations from the same book! How could the gift of sonship come through birth if it comes by adoption? But, this is typical of most "scholars" on this subject, and it is bewildering.

These family members, from the opening passages, are "citizens of Zion," of the "commonwealth (politeia) of Israel," which is a community of family members who are all related by a common birth, and common parents. It will be shown that all the members of this family, or faith community, are not only related by birth, but by country of origin. It will also be shown how it is not to the physical seed of Abraham, or to those who are Israelites by physical birth, that these things apply, but to the spiritual seed, to those who have been born again and made Jews inwardly. This community of believers are children of God the Father and of Zion/Jerusalem the mother. The "birth and nativity" of those who are children of the new birth is of the land of promise, of that "heavenly country."

The word "household" is from the Greek "oikos" and the word "family" is from "patria" (from pater, father) Patria represents persons of successive generations who are related by birth.

Patria refers to a family or clan, to all who are linked by line of descent from a common progenitor or linked through ancestry. It refers to all the descendants of a particular patriarch. Since the whole Jewish nation can be traced back to Abraham, then it can be called the patria of Abraham. The word "family" is a collective term for the descendants of the same father. Just like modern society, there is the basic "nuclear family," consisting of parents and children. Beyond this, there is the "extended family," which includes relatives.

The Greek word for "family" can only be applied to those who have been born into it, and cannot refer to those who are adopted. There are no adopted members in the family or household of God. There are no aliens, foreigners, nor strangers, in this community. All are citizens of the same country and of the same family heritage. The "people of God" are one spiritually ethnic nation where each citizen is brother and sister to each other.

What is meant by the "whole family" being both in heaven and earth? It no doubt includes all redeemed men and women, those now alive on earth, and those who have died in Christ and are now, as disembodied spirits, alive in heaven.  This family, divided now by location, is like a tree, a kind of "family tree." Part of any tree is visible, above ground. Part of it is invisible, below ground.

It probably also includes the holy angels who are "sons of God." Angels were not procreated or born, but created. They certainly did not become members of the divine family by adoption. Had they been begotten like men, then they would have been first infants and would have to reach perfection by a process of growth and development, like natural men and like those born of the Spirit. They were made adult full grown sons in the image of the Father and hence their title "sons of God."

Angels are like Adam, in this respect, who was himself called "son of God." (Luke 3:38) Adam was made a full grown man and "son of God" as were the angels. No other man is like this, either as respects his natural or spiritual birth. God is the originator or creator of the extended family, which includes angels and men. Angels are "sons of God," but not by being "begotten" ("to which of the angels did the Lord say thou art my son this day have I begotten thee?" - Heb. 1: 5). They are, as stated, such by creation, not procreation. They are "sons of God" by production and not reproduction.

Redeemed men, or spiritual "Israelites," who also are styled "sons of God" in Scripture, are not made full grown men in their spiritual births, but are born infants and must develop into full grown status, the "end" of their having been begotten.

Christ, as the eternally begotten Son, was not begotten as a babe, but as the perfect Son of God. Christ, however, in his begotten human nature, was born a babe and progressed through the stages of growth, from childhood to full manhood (concerning which much more will be said in future chapters).  In regard to Christ's humanity he was a "child" before he became an adult "son," but not so in regard to his divinity.

Some teach that Christ is "son" by adoption, not by nature or by eternal generation. But, the Scriptures no more speak of Christ being "son" by adoption as it does of his people or the angels becoming sons by adoption. Becoming children or sons is the result of birth and creation, not by adoption.

The God-Man, Christ Jesus, is the "Firstborn Son" of the family of God, which family includes several classes of holy beings, as observed. Christ is ruling over the house of God on behalf of the Father. (Hebrews 3: 1-6) In this family, the Father and his Firstborn Son rule. The government of it being patriarchal in structure, each family member has his or her assigned place of honor and glory and of service.

Israelites of the OT, like Christians of the NT, in being born of God, are spiritually born as infants and do not attain to full status as a "son" until full maturity and complete likeness to the Father and Son.

Welcomed into the Family

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6:16-18)

The word "receive" may well be translated as "welcome." Separate yourself from your fallen family as Abraham forsook his father's house and the land of his birth in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 12:1) to become part of another family and nation in the land of promise. Rather than being "of" the world, the call is to become "of" God. It connotes the leaving of one family and community to become part of another.

In the Greek text "a people" is from the Greek word "laos" which often means "a people, people group, tribe, nation, all those who are of the same stock and language" in the NT, and sometimes it may simply mean "a great part of the population gathered together anywhere" (Thayer, Strong, etc.). W. E. Vine in his dictionary of NT words, says "laos" is often used "of Christians as the people of God, e.g., Act 15:14; Tts 2:14; Hbr 4:9; 1Pe 2:9" and of "a people of the same race and language," e.g., Rev 5:9; in the plural, e.g., Luk 2:31; Rom 15:11; Rev 7:9; 11:9; especially of Israel, e.g., Mat 2:6; 4:23; John 11:50; Act 4:8; Hbr 2:17."

A "people of the same race and language" are the people of God, not as respects who they are naturally, via their natural births, but as respects who they are spiritually, via their spiritual births. Their "race" is heavenly and Jewish, resulting from their birth of the Spirit and union with the Hebrew Christ. Their "language" is also unique to them as a spiritual ethnic group. Even now, metaphorically speaking, Christians speak the same language theologically, having the same basic creed of the Bible. But, one day they will all, in their eternal state, all speak the same language and be one in this as well as every other respect. Wrote the prophet: "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zeph. 3:9 kjv)

There should be no indefinite article "a" added to the passage as there is in many English translations. Though the definite article "the" is absent, this does not justify the insertion of the "a" indefinite. The Greeks did not make use of the indefinite, and one should not always be implied by the absence of the definite. This is the consensus of Greek scholars of the NT. The literal statement is "and I will be Father to you."

If God becomes Father to a man, does this not then denote that he gives birth to that man? This was true in regard to the Greek word for "father," which defines it as denoting one who is birth father, not to an adoptive father. Of course, this is not the only thing involved in being "father" so someone. It includes providing for the well being of the family. In speaking of "sons and daughters" rather than "children" the implication is that he will not only give birth to but be responsible for their reaching their destined end of their births, that of becoming full grown sons and daughters.

Universal Father

God is viewed in Scripture as supreme Patriarch or Father in relation to creation. "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things" (I Cor. 8:6) "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:6)

God is universal father. He is the "founding father" of the universe and of mankind. The man who invents or develops some new product is often called the “father” of that product. We use the term “father” to identify its source.

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto God, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts 17:27)

Because God is Father of all created, some teach that the fatherhood of God means everyone is a spiritual child of God and because of that everyone is going to heaven. According to the Bible, this is not true. God is universal Father to all because he has given existence to all. He is the natural Father of all, but not the spiritual Father of all.

The whole point of all this is this: when Paul speaks of the "whole family" and relates this to "the Father," is there any idea present that God is an adoptive Father, rather than a birth Father? Who can fail to see that to father, in the Hebrew and Greek terms, refers to one who produces or creates children and sons in his image and with his nature?

I cannot find anywhere in the OT or in the NT where "father" is used to designate an adopted father, or for one who was not father because he has fathered or begat children. The idea, in Scripture, is that "father" is by definition one who has "begotten" a child. Likewise, as far as I know, no Scripture word for "child," when used in relation to parents, ever alludes to an adopted child, but always to a begotten child. Even when "father" is used metaphorically there is still the idea of producing or generating. For instance, note this passage in Job. "Does the rain have a father? Who fathers ('begotten' kjv) the drops of dew?" (Job 38: 28 niv) The idea of producing or siring offspring is integral to how the word "father" is used in Scripture. Even the cry "Abba, Father," so much talked about in the context of being born or adopted, is not the cry of an adopted child, but of a birth child. We see it also in the words of Peter who speaks of "the Father...who hath begotten us again..." (I Peter 1:3 kjv) When God says that he had made Abraham the "father" of many nations (Rom. 4:17-18), it is clear that this means progenitor, not adopter. We have these words also from the NT that bear on this question of the members of the family of God - "Brethren, sons of Abraham's family," (Acts 13: 26 NAS)

Who are the real "Israelites"?

Paul will explain in Romans chapter nine how both becoming, and being placed, as "sons of God," is not true for those who are mere "Israelites" biologically, according to the flesh, or who are so in name only, or even for  those who are so culturally and religiously. He will state positively - "They are not all 'Israel' which are of Israel (Jacob)." He will say also - "neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children." (vs. 6-7) He had earlier said nearly the same thing.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2: 28-29)

Thus, there is a carnal fleshly Jew, Hebrew, or Israelite, as well as a physical circumcision. But, there is also reference to what is the opposite to the carnal and fleshly, to that one who is a Jew, Israelite, Hebrew, son of God, son of Abraham, etc., in a true and spiritual sense. In order to become a "Jew" inwardly, to become a real "Hebrew" or "son of God," one must be "born again" as Jesus taught (John 3:1-8), as well as the apostles (See for instance I Cor. 4: 13, James 1: 18, I Peter 1: 23-25). This new birth would become the real circumcision, dealing with the heart, the seat of man's moral being, and not with the flesh.

In I Cor. 10:18 Paul spoke of "Israel after the flesh," of that "Israel" of which every natural born Jew becomes a part by physical birth and natural circumcision. But the true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) is made up of those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, be they Jews or Gentiles (according to the flesh, that is) and they are by comparison rather "Israel after the spirit." The contrast is between natural, carnal, or fleshly Israel and spiritual Israel. One who is a "Jew by nature" (Gal. 2: 15), or by physical birth alone, or merely external, is not necessarily one so internally in spirit. One may be a reckoned a Jew by men and by human ethnic standards, and one in name, but may not be so in reality. There are they "who say they are Jews but are liars." (Rev. 3:9) Wrote Paul:

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." (Gal. 4: 28-29)

How does one become a "child of the promise"? By being "born after the Spirit" and not by adoption!

Waiting For The Huiothesia V

Chapter Five - Defects in the Adoption Model

In this chapter a closer look at the adoption model will be given with the purpose of showing the severe defects in the model and how it is against Scripture. Most of the defects come in the form of contradictions arising from reconciling the model with the biblical model of birth, of which much has been said already. Other defects involve its opposition to other aspects of salvation and redemption.

In giving further scrutiny to this widely accepted model of child making by adoption, as applied to the way God makes his children, it has already been demonstrated that the birth model makes the adoption model unnecessary, and to insist on both being models calls for one to hold to a contradiction and to an absurdity.

In the previous chapter it was shown how the Scriptures of the OT were clear in calling Israel the Lord's "begotten son." This not only logically excludes the idea of "adoption" but accounts for it's absence in the OT as the explanation given by the Lord for calling people his children or sons. In addition to the verses cited in the previous chapter about Israel being God's offspring by a birth, notice these words of the prophet Isaiah.

"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." (Isaiah 51: 1-2)

What kind of "father" was either the Lord or Abraham to Israel? An adopted father or birth father? Though the word "begat" is not used in this passage, yet it is implied. Being "hewn" from the quarry is a metaphor for being sired by Abraham, as coming from his seed. Sarah's womb is compared to the pit from whence the hewn stone would be shaped. No where is adoption given as the reason for the Israelites being the children or sons of God. Of course, like in the NT, being "the seed of Abraham" is intimately connected with being "the children of God." In Galatians Paul said:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ... And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (3:16,29)

Those who are, truly in God's eyes, of "the seed of Abraham," are indeed the real "children" or offspring of God. But, what is it that makes one of this "seed"? If looked at from the standpoint of the physical seed, all who came "from" Abraham were of his seed, and none were his seed by adoption. It is also true in regard to those who are of that seed by virtue of their union to Christ, who is superlatively "the seed." Thus, as will be shown, believers, though ethnically Gentiles, are the real "seed of Abraham" or true "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16), the spiritual children of God. Paul plainly says about those who are merely of the physical seed of Abraham - "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom. 9:8)

But, in either case, whether we are talking about the physical seed of Abraham, or the spiritual seed, we are still talking about people who are connected with Abraham by virtue of a birth, and not by adoption. The very idea that a Hebrew, or NT writer, would refer to adopted children as being the "seed" of a father is totally without foundation. Not only is it true that OT Israelites were so by birth, and not by adoption, but it is also true of NT believers.

Christians are Born and Not Adopted

"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:11-13)

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:3-8)

Paul spoke of souls begin "begotten" by his preaching the Gospel (I Cor. 5: 15). Peter spoke of "being born again by the word of God" (I Peter 1: 23). James spoke of God who, of his own will, "begat us with the word of truth" (James 1:18) But, where is it ever said that Christians were adopted? As said in the Introduction, if the five verses that have "adoption" had been translated correctly, no one would ever think that Christians were God's children in any way other than by a birth. It is clear also that the NT writers referred to believers, either Jew or Gentile, as being the children and sons of God because of this spiritual birth and never as a result of a Roman style adoption procedure.

The Lord Rejected the Adoption Method

"After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:1-6)

This text is important in the debate about adoption and about how one becomes the child, son, or heir of a man, in the time of Abraham. Abraham has been promised a "seed," children, and especially a "son." This seed would become innumerable. Abraham's first understanding of God's promise was correct. God would give him a seed, an offspring, an heir, one who would "come forth out of thine own bowels." Yet, Abraham, with his age and that of Sarah, brings him to question the promise. Perhaps he has misinterpreted the prophecy. Maybe God will make an heir for Abraham by adoption, he thinks. But, this was not his first understanding of how God would give him a male heir. The adoption method was "plan B" in his mind. After all, it seems that adoption of a servant to be the male heir was a Mesopotamian custom. Following then the heathen custom of the day, he suggests that perhaps LORD God ought to adopt his “steward, this "Eliezer of Damascus,” to make him his legal “heir.” However, God rejects this plan and promises that Abraham will have a child “out of thine own bowels” (i.e., by being physically procreated). The Lord’s rejection of Abraham’s solution preceded God’s reiterated promise of innumerable descendants.

God says in this narrative - "An adopted child will not be your heir" and "your child will be your child by birth and not by adoption."

This ought to warn us about making adoption to be the vehicle for God acquiring children and of them becoming heirs, and about trying to make birth and adoption to be complimentary models. The Lord is not only strong in affirming that the heir to the Abrahamic promises will be made so by procreation, but also in denying that it is by adoption. Yet, in spite of this, commentators will continue to speak of both models as necessary to explain how people become the children of God. Just as adopted children were rejected from being the physical seed of Abraham, the seed being restricted to those born of the flesh, so the spiritual seed also are not adopted children, but those who are so by a new birth of the Spirit.

Does God Need To Adopt?

To speak after the manner of men, is God sterile? Is it because he cannot have children (again speaking carnally)? Is it because he is childless and must need adopt? This is the reason for most adoptions, among men historically, especially among the Greeks and Romans. It is because a man has no male heir, one of his seed, that he must therefore adopt. This is important, because all scholars know that if "adoption" be the correct rendering of "huiothesia," then it must be either a Greek or Roman model that is being used. Those who use a later English model have no authority to do so, for modern English adoption is unlike Greek or Roman in purpose and procedure. Knowing this, we must conclude that God is adopting children because he cannot have any of his own. This is one wholly untenable and yet a logical result arising from making Greco-Roman adoption the model for how and why God acquires children.

Someone might respond by saying - "Of course God is not sterile. He only chooses to adopt because he wants more children than birthed children, like many today." But, there are several things wrong with this reply and reveals much about how people can hold on to a false idea no matter what the logical consequences.

If you listen to the teaching of most commentators, then you will come away thinking that God is sterile, because, as we have seen, the reason why Greek and Roman men adopted males to be heirs was because they had none of their own, nearly always resulting from infertility. These are theological consequences of the view that says that God adopted Israel to be his son, and says that Christians likewise have been adopted into the family of God, all after the Roman or Greek fashion.

Further, the way adoption is explained today, it is God who adopts because it is his way of caring for orphans, and people are encouraged to imitate him in this and adopt orphans. He adopts for the benefit of the orphan. But, Greek and Roman adoption was not for the purpose of helping orphans, nor for the chief good of the one adopted, but rather for the greater good of the childless man. If this be a model for Christian theology, then God not only is represented as sterile and childless, but also as adopting chiefly for his own good.

In "The Law of Adoption" by John Francis Brosnan in the Columbia Law Review (Vol. 22, No. 4, Apr., 1922, pp. 332-342 - SEE HERE - emphasis mine), we read:

"Roman law is the unquestioned source of our adoption statutes of to-day. It is, therefore, of interest to consider, although briefly, the place and development of adoption under that system of jurisprudence.

Its purpose was to create artificially the parental power for the benefit of a head of a family over a person not subject thereto by birth. It was designed to avoid the extinction of the family and to perpetuate the rites of family religious worship, so that it was frequently resorted to and became extremely important."

If in Roman adoption the father, or paterfamilias. is a type of God as father, then it fails miserably. Is the Roman father, in his purpose and procedure in acquiring sons and heirs a picture of God doing the same? Who can believe it? Yet, if the Roman system of adoption be the model put forth by Paul to illustrate God's adoption of sons and heirs, we have many problems, as is being shown. By the Roman model one must view God as adopting children because either 1) he has none of his own, or 2) because his own biological sons are rejected as not being worthy to be heir.

Trevor Burke wrote the following in "Pauline Adoption: a Sociological Approach" (emphasis mine - SEE HERE):

"Given the fundamental importance of the family to Roman society, adoption was a lifeline 'for a family in danger of dying out' . This was usually due to a paterfamilias (head of the household) being unable to have children of his own, or because his own children had failed to live to adulthood, and so, in order that he might have an heir, recourse was made to adopting a son from another family...where childlessness is one of the main reasons for embarking on such a course, The Roman conception of adoption was rooted in the old religious basis of the Roman family where each family had its own cult or sacra ('sacred things'). It was paramount that the family worship should continue and where this was threatened, or in doubt, due to a lack of persons to carry it on, adoption was called into practice. Again, unlike society today where children are adopted, the normal subjects of adoption in the Roman world were already adults, by which time the chances of survival were greater and the adopting father could see what he was getting as a son and heir."

Does God adopt for the reason that Roman men did? Was it a "lifeline for a family in danger of dying out"? Who can believe that this would be a reason for God to adopt! Does God adopt because he is "unable to have children of his own"? Does he adopt because some of his biological sons are unworthy? Does God adopt adults or children?

Consider also the fact that in Roman adoptions, the male chosen to be adopted, slave or near kin, had choice whether to be adopted or not. This is because the purpose of Roman adoption, to acquire a male heir, nearly always excluded babies or small children, as noted. "Sons" were adopted, that is, adolescents or young mature men. These men had to agree to the adoption. Yet, in modern adoptions, not only is the purpose generally not to acquire a male heir, but the age of the adoptee is different, for today adoption is rarely of young men, it nearly always being adoption of babies or very small children, whose consent is not required. Clearly, whether  we choose an adoption model where the choice of the adoptee is involved, or not, each model has its consequences theologically.

The Eternal Family & Son

God has never been childless or without an heir. Just as the first person in the Trinity is styled the "Father," and has ever been so, likewise the second person has always been styled the "Son," and this has ever been so. Likewise, the Spirit is the third member of this divine family.

Christ is "the Son of God" and "the only begotten of the Father," and this by birth and not by adoption. This begetting of "the Son of God" is an immanent act of God, eternal and without beginning. As long as God has been "Father" he has also been "Son" and "Spirit." So, it is not proper to say that God adopts children from among men because he is childless or without a male heir.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water." (Prov. 8:22-24)

The Son of God was "brought forth" in eternity past. His sonship is without beginning. It was the Father, Son (or Word) and Spirit that said "let us make man in our image after our likeness."

Not only will the purpose of Greek or Roman adoption, or of that adoption suggested by Abraham, not serve as a model for why God is "father" to his children, but it will not picture how he actually makes or produces children, as has been shown. Certainly God does not adopt because he wants more children than he is able to produce, the reason for many modern adoptions, nor because he is sterile or unable to produce children, nor because he lacks an heir.

God was not creating a totally new family by begetting children from among fallen men. As shown, there is the eternal family of Father, Son, and Spirit. Those who are "born of God" are they who become new members of the eternal family. Not that they ever become members of the Trinity or become God, but are created children, who are not so from eternity. Angels are, in the OT, called "sons of God," and this is due to them being created as such. So, likewise, Christians are "sons of God" by a new creation.

Romans Adopted Their Own Kin

Considering that the main purpose of Roman adoption was the preservation of the family clan or cult, only males were chosen. Generally heirless Roman men looked within their own extended family for a suitable man to adopt as son and heir. If a worthy man was not found there, one could be taken from among the slave population and made an heir. Caesar adopted his great-nephew Octavius. Actually, many Roman emperors adopted their successors. Adopting nephews was very common.

Now, if all this be a picture of how God supposedly adopts men and makes them heirs, then does he not look first to his own kin? If he does have begotten children, yet he adopts, is it because his own children have proved unworthy?

At this point, by way of introduction, mention must be made about the fact that Romans "adopted" or "son placed" their own biological sons in the Toga ceremony. But, that will be addressed in coming chapters.

I am sure that it has by now become quite obvious that the theological consequences for arguing for a doctrine of adoption to explain the manner in which people become children of God, and enter into his family, is quite untenable.

Wrote Dr. John MacArthur in "Marks of a Child Adopted by God" (See Here - emphasis mine):

"The theme of these three verses then clearly is our being adopted as sons of God. One of the most beautiful and rich theological concepts of the Scripture is this theme of adoption. In fact the very word is filled with grace and mercy and love. Adoption by definition refers to a legal action by which a person takes into his family a child not his own and usually not even related to him for the purpose of treating him as and giving him all the privileges of his own child. That's adoption, a legal action by which we take someone who is not a part of our family in to grant them all the privileges of being our true child."

One should be able to see the several errors in Dr. MacArthur's words. First, is it so that Christians, by adoption, are not God's own children, as MacArthur affirms? MacArthur, like Piper and others, argue that God will later, after adoption, make those "not his own," to become his own children by the new birth, but, as observed in the previous chapters, this is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. One wonders what a later spiritual birth does for the adopted person?

MacArthur again wrote:

"In the first century, you will be happy to know this, in the first century when Paul was writing this adopted children were in many cases more honored than natural children. That's right. In many cases, in all cases it was seen as an act of honor to be adopted. And to be able to say in a world of illegitimate children and in a world of orphaned children I was chosen by someone. I wasn't just born into a family and you got what you got; I was chosen. Being adopted was a noble thing. An adopted son was deliberately chosen by the adopting father to perpetuate that father's name and to inherit that father's estate. And when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him and give him all the rights and privileges. He was in no way inferior; in fact he was chosen because he may be superior. There were many fathers who had sons but their sons didn't meet their qualifications to pass on the estate so they went out and found one that did. An adopted son may have well received the joy of his father...father's affection more than a naturally born son and he may well have reproduced his father's moral standards more perfectly than natural sons."

Notice how MacArthur exalts the idea of being God's adopted children over being his own children by birth. He says that the birth is inferior to the adoption because in the latter case the child is chosen for its worthiness, while the former is not the result of a choice. He said - "when a father in the Greek world didn't have a son he would go find the noblest available son and adopt him." Is that what MacArthur believes about election, that God chose the most worthy? The child thus feels more loved and more important by being adopted rather than by being born? It is ironic that MacArthur, a Calvinist who believes in the doctrine of unconditional election, could think that his model of God choosing to adopt children, based upon their worthiness, is consistent with that.

It is hard to believe that MacArthur could so belittle the "birth" of Christians into the family of God, in favor of his adoption model, by saying "I wasn't just born into a family"? No, I was both born and adopted, and the latter is so much more precious than the former! No, I was adopted, which means I was chosen, but to be born does not imply choice. Such false reasoning from one who ought to know better!

Surely MacArthur knows that God is in control of all things, and that his birthing of children is a result of choice? Does he believe that some of God's children are "accidental pregnancies," that happened not as a result of choice? Surely he believes that every child that he has ever sired was sired on purpose? But, more on that later.

Dr. MacArthur wrote further:

"And that's the whole point of biblical adoption, that we become children of God by sovereign, divine choice. We are the preferred choice of God. That's a remarkable thing, isn't it? On the basis of free and voluntary election God has chosen us to be adopted as His sons."

Again, he is arguing for a Pelagian or Arminian view of election. God chooses on the basis of some qualitative difference or condition in the individual in a group. He says "we are the preferred choice of God," God choosing the fittest.

Dr. MacArthur wrote further:

"Throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again that when you become a Christian you enter into the very family of God. You did nothing to earn it, you did nothing to deserve it, you did nothing to choose it,"

In speaking of adoption he said "throughout the New Testament you see this imagery over and over again," but, as shown already, the NT does not promote the idea of adoption "throughout," but rather teaches that people are designated as children and sons of God as a result of spiritual birth. But, men like Piper and MacArthur, think that being born of God does not do for us all that we need to make us his children, being deficient in that respect.

In these words he also contradicts what he said previously. He said that God chose the worthy to be his heir, but here he says that becoming God's child by adoption is something that a person did not do anything to earn. Then, he says, "you did nothing to choose it." But, he must be arguing from modern English adoption modes, which the Apostle knew nothing about, of course, for in Roman adoption the adoptee, as stated previously, had to approve of the adoption.

So, we see more of the fact that the birth model and the adoption model are not complimentary, but rather at odds. First, in the case of Roman adoption, the person chooses whether he wants to be the son of another. Yet, in birth, the child does not choose such. So, which is it?

Dr. MacArthur wrote further:

"Now, when we talk about salvation in the terms of adoption, I just want to put in a footnote here so you don't miss the full picture. That's just one view of salvation. You could talk about salvation with the term of justification, which is a different issue. It looks at salvation from the forensic side, from God declaring us righteous on the merits of Christ. You could look at salvation as regeneration, which looks at salvation as the new birth. You could look at salvation under the term “sanctification,” which means you're set apart from sin unto holiness. And you can look at salvation as adoption.Those are all facets of salvation. It's like one diamond with many facets; you can look at from many angles and see its beauty. We are regenerate, we are justified, we are sanctified, we have been converted and we have been adopted. So in one sense we are sons by adoption and we are also sons by birth. Right? Regeneration. You shouldn't be confused, you shouldn't say are we adopted or are we born? Both. Those are just images. Those are just magnificent ways to look at what happened to us. And I think the reason that the New Testament introduces adoption is because adoption was such a remarkably lofty thing. To say that you were born into the family of God might not be something very special but to say that out of all the world of people God Himself chose you and lifted you to the status of an heir and a joint heir with Jesus Christ to become His own son forever that says something unique."

Yes, there are "facets" to the diamond of soteriological truth. But, to argue that justification and sanctification are facets of salvation in the same way as are birth and adoption, fails to see how the one involves a contradiction while the other does not. It is not a contradiction to say one has both been justified and sanctified, yet it is a contradiction to say that one has been both adopted and born by the same parents. Further, he tries to cover up such contradictions by saying "those are just images," as if this meant that it is okay for such contradictions to exist. Also, he again reiterates the fact that birth alone is deficient, and requires adoption as an addition, with adoption being the more important facet. Again, he belittles the importance of being born a child.

Dr. MacArthur wrote further:

"That's why the issue of adoption, picture of adoption, is given for us in the New Testament, because it opens up and enriches us with this tremendous dimension of salvation."

With this, like Piper, MacArthur admits that the doctrine of adoption was not an OT teaching. In this admission, he gives up a large basis for his case being truth. NT teaching is based upon the OT. Further, as has been shown, the NT does not contradict the OT, for the NT also does not teach the doctrine of adoption.