ECT Sonship vs. Adoption

nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
1Mind1Spirit said:
Watch you talkin' 'bout, Willis?



Acts 4:27 KJV


27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed , both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together ,


Acts 4:30 KJV


30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

However, while He most certainly is called a child, isn't that more descriptive than nominative? Since "son" implies more than just parentage in this case, how is one supposed to find that understanding in "child"? I know I'm probably being clear as mud, but when someone is called a "child of God", there is something more than just parent-child reliationship implied. When Jesus is called a "holy child", isn't that just saying He was of God? If He was actually given the name (or descriptor) "child of God", wouldn't that mean something a little more?

Of course, maybe I'm reading my assumptions back into the terms...
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
nikolai_42 said:
So you are saying that adoption only pertains to Israelites? Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:15,23 seem to say otherwise. Hanging all that on the turn of a preposition seems dangerous to me anyway...
Click to expand...

When all else fails Dispy's just stamp Dispensationism on it and keep on truckin'.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
nikolai_42 said:
I stand corrected.

However, while He most certainly is called a child, isn't that more descriptive than nominative? Since "son" implies more than just parentage in this case, how is one supposed to find that understanding in "child"? I know I'm probably being clear as mud, but when someone is called a "child of God", there is something more than just parent-child reliationship implied. When Jesus is called a "holy child", isn't that just saying He was of God?

Of course, maybe I'm reading my assumptions back into the terms...
Click to expand...


Jesus is never called a holy child either, in the gospels; in the account of His life while on earth.

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'. Luke 1:35 (KJV)
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
nikolai_42 said:
While listening to a popular minister on the radio yesterday (who was preaching on resurrection), the thought occurred to me that sonship is spoken of by Paul quite a bit but by John only a couple times. I was led to this when the minister quoted Paul on sonship and I was thinking in parallel of what John said but realized that there was a divide between them. Not necessarily a contradiction, but a place where Paul seemed to be fairly specific but where John was vague. that has to do with adoption.

Obviously, adoption or sonship is not an either/or matter. If one is a son, one is adopted as a son. But the seeming discontinuity makes me wonder about what I have always thought about these matters. Is one a son before one is adopted? Why would Paul say in Romans that adoption pertains to Israel (Romans 9:4) but in Galatians (where he roundly condemns the Judaizers) that Gentiles might receive the adoption of sons (Galatians 4:5)?

Further - and approaching the crux of the seeming contention between Paul and John - Paul says that this adoption is the redemption of our bodies (i.e. the resurrection):

And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:23

Yet to the Ephesians, Paul places adoption in a (seemingly) more immediate (if not accomplished) context :

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,
Ephesians 1:4-5

John says that those who believed on Christ were given power to become sons of God. And the scripture that really precipitated all this comes from his first epistle :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I John 3:2

The only way I see to be consistent is to say that no one is actually adopted until the resurrection. But even then, the spirit of what John is saying seems to tend more to the accomplished (already) understanding of sonship. If believers are NOW the sons of God, what does it mean, then to be adopted?

What's going on here?
Click to expand...

Looks like I may have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. John uses the term for "child" (teknon) in I John 3:2. It seems Paul uses that same term distinctly from that for "sons" (huios).

So I guess it could be that a child is adopted and then becomes a son (in Paul's terminology, at least).
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
nikolai_42 said:
Looks like I may have strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. John uses the term for "child" (teknon) in I John 3:2. It seems Paul uses that same term distinctly from that for "sons" (huios).

So I guess it could be that a child is adopted and then becomes a son (in Paul's terminology, at least).
Click to expand...

Why don't you accept the scripture as written so you can move on?
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
nikolai_42 said:
...John says that those who believed on Christ were given power to become sons of God. And the scripture that really precipitated all this comes from his first epistle :

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I John 3:2

The only way I see to be consistent is to say that no one is actually adopted until the resurrection. But even then, the spirit of what John is saying seems to tend more to the accomplished (already) understanding of sonship. If believers are NOW the sons of God, what does it mean, then to be adopted?

What's going on here?
Click to expand...
Jesus is God's Son eternally begotten (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5), the second person of the trinity (Matt. 28:19). We are God's adopted sons and daughters.

In the past we were predestined to adoption (God calling out a people for his namesake [Isa 25:1]) [Rom. 8:29]. Today we are regarded as sons and daughters [John 1:12, 13; John 3:1–11]. One day we will be glorified as sons [Rom. 8:19, 23; 1 John 3:2]. We are adopted by grace alone (Rom. 4:16, 17), through faith alone (Gal. 3:7, 26), through Christ alone (Gal. 4:4, 5). Christ's place in the resurrection is one of firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:20, 23) then the first converts (Rom. 16:5), then us (Jas 1:18). Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1996). Nelson’s quick reference topical Bible index (p. 20). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

See:

Does God Elect Everyone?
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
nikolai_42 said:
I stand corrected.

However, while He most certainly is called a child, isn't that more descriptive than nominative? Since "son" implies more than just parentage in this case, how is one supposed to find that understanding in "child"? I know I'm probably being clear as mud, but when someone is called a "child of God", there is something more than just parent-child reliationship implied. When Jesus is called a "holy child", isn't that just saying He was of God? If He was actually given the name (or descriptor) "child of God", wouldn't that mean something a little more?

Of course, maybe I'm reading my assumptions back into the terms...
Click to expand...

No.

Parent child relationship covers it nicely.

Christ is first born not Adam.

Adam and all the rest are offspring.
 
Totton Linnet

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
nikolai_42 said:
Why, then, does John say that NOW are we the sons of God? Paul's treatment of adoption seems largely to be dealing with resurrection (redemption of the body). John seems to be saying that the believer already IS adopted. Paul...doesn't.
Click to expand...

I read both to say we are the children of God, but it is not yet manifest...at the appearing of our Lord it will become manifest.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
serpentdove said:
No. He was virgin born (Ge 3:15, Lk 1:26–35).
Click to expand...

So? And?? How does that change anything? How could the Son of God exist without first being born "son of Man". Does not the scripture say this that puts things in proper order:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." 1 Corinthians 15:46 (KJV)
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Cross Reference said:
"So? And? How does that change anything?"
Click to expand...
Adam made all men sinners (Rom. 5:12). Jesus was without sin (Heb 4:15).

Cross Reference said:
"How could the Son of God exist without first being born "son of Man"."
Click to expand...
Do you believe that there was ever a time that Jesus did not exist? Jn 1:1-3 Jesus is Son of Man (Matt. 8:20, Re 1:13).

Cross Reference said:
"Does not the scripture say this that puts things in proper order: "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." 1 Corinthians 15:46 (KJV)"
Click to expand...
Our bodies will rise again (Dan 12:2). Christ is first in the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20, 23).

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven [1 Cor. 15:46–47].

"The first man is of the earth and is earthy—choikos, meaning “clay,” rubbish if you please. There is so much talk of ecology today. Who messed up this earth anyway? Man. Because man is earthy. Everything that is the refuse of man is rubbish. He is that kind of creature. He fills the garbage cans. But the Second Man is the Lord from heaven." McGee, J. V. (1991). Thru the Bible commentary: The Epistles (1 Corinthians) (electronic ed., Vol. 44, p. 188). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

See:

Godrulz
 
1Mind1Spirit

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Cross Reference said:
So? And?? How does that change anything? How could the Son of God exist without first being born "son of Man". Does not the scripture say this that puts things in proper order:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." 1 Corinthians 15:46 (KJV)
Click to expand...

Barnabas 6

11 Since then he made us new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.


12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; these things were spoken to the Son.
 
Cross Reference

Cross Reference

New member
1Mind1Spirit said:
Barnabas 6

11 Since then he made us new by the remission of sins he made us another type, that we should have the soul of children, as though he were creating us afresh.


12 For it is concerning us that the scripture says that he says to the Son, "Let us make man after our image and likeness, and let them rule the beasts of the earth, and the birds of heaven, and the fishes of the sea." And the Lord said, when he saw our fair creation, "Increase and multiply and fill the earth"; these things were spoken to the Son.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, Barnabas 6. How could I forget? :rolleyes:
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Cross Reference said:
[Jesus begotten not made on in being with the Father] "...Jesus learned the ways of His Father, was adopted back by God, was filled with all grace and truth [His diploma], and then sent into the world to enable us to follow suit. Fatherhood in God is what He is after in our sonship because fathers beget new sons unto Him. God wants a vast family of sons. By now you should know that."
Click to expand...

Was there ever a time that Jesus did not exist? Was he fully God and fully man in the manger? Did he walk out of the tomb on the third day?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top