We’ve been through this before in the other conversation. Here.
See the context, as well.
Then why is this written in Revelation (that we’ve been over before 
):
You know a lot of them, do you?
I wish I had a dollar for all of your questions that I’ve answered, plus all the ones that I’ve answered more than once.
I can empathize with the author of Hebrews:
I decided to look into the Biblical concept of adoption. The passages for these are Romans chapters 8-9, Galatians chapter 4, Ephesians 1, and 1 John 3. The results are no one simple answer but ideas which are all over the place. Some passages suggest that this applies only to Christians and other passages that it applies to all mankind. Some passages to something Christians already have and other passages tell us it is only in the future and all of creation is waiting for it. To argue that it is irrevocable lends as much support to universalism as it does to OSAS. But It only says it cannot be taken away from us by any external force not that it cannot be abandoned or rejected – nothing saying it is unconditional and in fact much saying that it is conditional.
But there are more fundamental philosophical problems, for it is directly connected to the question of whether God loves us as His children and the passages about adoption support this. Does God only love some of us conditionally, thinking of only some of us as His children because they have joined His favored religion? I cannot see how this can avoid turning such a religion into something completely evil, and my conclusion is that universalism is better in every way than OSAS – Biblically, theologically, morally, and philosophically.
I still don’t think universalism is correct – but not impossible, evil, or non-Christian. I cannot say the same for OSAS without universalism. It think it is fundamentally flawed and even poisonous. So universalism is the only form of OSAS I could ever accept. You cannot have it both ways – either it is all in God’s hands or some part of this is up to us. If it is all in God’s hands then universalism follows from a belief in a good and loving God. I still think salvation is 100% a work of God, but it is not a work upon inanimate objects but to change the desires and increase the freedom of living beings. We are completely in the dark, but God’s work is to give us light and empower us so we can choose Him.
1 Like
So after you’ve been born you can lose being birthed. There are too many irreversible biblical metaphors. Do you remember the list? The Christian’s Confidence & Eternal Security, a list
Ah, I’d forgotten – you had a number of replies in the other conversation applicable to the question, as well. Why don’t you revisit them… and the counterarguments: Spinoff: Law vs. Grace?
this is a very good discussion. I had some thoughts, but looks like this might want to go in another thread, so I’ll wait. Thanks 
I was recently caught by surprise by how passionately G. Macdonald rejects the translators’ use of the word ‘adoption’ for what St. Paul was teaching in the new testament. He (Macdonald) makes his case in his unspoken sermon: “Abba, Father!” which I’ll quote just a bit from below.
I’ll just let Macdonald speak for himself … (though the entire sermon is worth a read) From that sermon:
As no scripture is of private interpretation, so is there no feeling in human heart which exists in that heart alone, which is not, in some form or degree, in every heart; and thence I conclude that many must have groaned like myself under the supposed authority of this doctrine. The refusal to look up to God as our Father is the one central wrong in the whole human affair; the inability, the one central misery: whatever serves to clear any difficulty from the way of the recognition of the Father, will more or less undermine every difficulty in life.
‘Is God then not my Father,’ cries the heart of the child, ‘that I need to be adopted by him? Adoption! that can never satisfy me. Who is my father? Am I not his to begin with? Is God not my very own Father? Is he my Father only in a sort or fashion—by a legal contrivance? Truly, much love may lie in adoption, but if I accept it from any one, I allow myself the child of another! The adoption of God would indeed be a blessed thing if another than he had given me being! but if he gave me being, then it means no reception, but a repudiation.—“O Father, am I not your child?”’
‘No; but he will adopt you. He will not acknowledge you his child, but he will call you his child, and be a father to you.’
‘Alas!’ cries the child, 'if he be not my father, he cannot become my father. A father is a father from the beginning. A primary relation cannot be superinduced. The consequence might be small where earthly fatherhood was concerned, but the very origin of my being—alas, if he be only a maker and not a father! Then am I only a machine, and not a child—not a man! It is false to say I was created in his image!
'It avails nothing to answer that we lost our birthright by the fall. I do not care to argue that I did not fall when Adam fell; for I have fallen many a time, and there is a shadow on my soul which I or another may call a curse; I cannot get rid of a something that always intrudes between my heart and the blue of every sky. But it avails nothing, …
A bit later in the same sermon Macdonald sheds light on what he thinks Paul was really talking about that is so badly misrepresented by our modern choice of the word ‘adoption’. Continuing with that part of the sermon below:
‘Then you dare to say the apostle is wrong in what he so plainly teaches?’
'By no means; what I do say is, that our English presentation of his teaching is in this point very misleading. It is not for me to judge the learned and good men who have revised the translation of the New Testament–with so much gain to every one whose love of truth is greater than his loving prejudice for accustomed form;–I can only say, I wonder what may have been their reasons for retaining this word adoption . In the New Testament the word is used only by the apostle Paul. Liddell and Scott give the meaning–“Adoption as a son,” which is a mere submission to popular theology: they give no reference except to the New Testament. The relation of the word [Greek: niothesia ] to the form [Greek: thetos ], which means “taken,” or rather, " placed as one’s child," is, I presume, the sole ground for the so translating of it: usage plentiful and invariable could not justify that translation here, in the face of what St. Paul elsewhere shows he means by the word. The Greek word might be variously meant–though I can find no use of it earlier than St. Paul; the English can mean but one thing, and that is not what St. Paul means. “The spirit of adoption” Luther translates “the spirit of a child;” adoption he translates kindschaft , or childship ’
Of two things I am sure–first, that by niothesia St. Paul did not intend adoption ; and second, that if the Revisers had gone through what I have gone through because of the word, if they had felt it come between God and their hearts as I have felt it, they could not have allowed it to remain in their version.
Once more I say, the word used by St Paul does not imply that God adopts children that are not his own, but rather that a second time he fathers his own; that a second time they are born–this time from above; that he will make himself tenfold, yea, infinitely their father: he will have them back into the very bosom whence they issued, issued that they might learn they could live nowhere else; he will have them one with himself. It was for the sake of this that, in his Son, he died for them.
Let us look at the passage where he reveals his use of the word. It is in another of his epistles–that to the Galatians: iv. I-7.
‘But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the father. So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.’
How could the Revisers choose this last reading, ‘an heir through God,’ and keep the word adoption ? From the passage it is as plain as St. Paul could make it, that, by the word translated adoption , he means the raising of a father’s own child from the condition of tutelage and subjection to others, a state which, he says, is no better than that of a slave, to the position and rights of a son. None but a child could become a son; the idea is–a spiritual coming of age; only when the child is a man is he really and fully a son . …
MacDonald, George. The Complete Works of George MacDonald (Illustrated Edition) … Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition.
1 Like
I am very sympathetic with MacDonald’s complaint about the idea of this adoption being something we do not have already. I think our adoption began with Adam. Even if the parent has to remove Himself from the child’s life for the child’s own good (as I think was the basic nature of the fall), that is an expression of His parental care rather than an abandonment.
I am not so sympathetic with MacDonald’s complaint that being only an adopted child is not enough. We are not the biological children of God. Quite the contrary, our biology is something we have inherited from our brethren living organisms of the planet. But in the same way the adopted child can look to the adoptive parents for everything else, we are in a very similar relationship with God. And to liken the situation to the example of adopted children rebelling against adoptive parents, this only strengthens the validity of the metaphor, for that too describes our relationship with God only too well.
Yeah - it almost seems like Macdonald had some life experience (or knew somebody) that soured his perception of adoption. And indeed he does allow that - in a worldly context - adoption can be a good thing. But only as a “next good thing” after some other ideal has failed. And regarding this most special of relationships between God and God’s children, it seems that Macdonald insists nothing less than the ideal will do. He becomes a bit of a purist on that, or so it seems to me.
You’re right, in the literal sense. I would push back though to say that’s exactly what we are: we are biological children. We are also children of God. We are biological children of God!" In the end, nothing will be allowed to cast even so much as a shadow between me and my divine parent - is what I hear Macdonald insisting. Which is why our own sin is such a serious deal - as it does come between. Don’t get between a mother bear and her cubs … Don’t try to get between God and his children. Obstacles and stumbling blocks will be removed, even if it takes eternally refining hellfire to do it. I do resonate with Macdonald on that conviction.
In the other thread someone made the observation that all the evidence points to things like violence being a part us, basically all through our evolutionary history. We have this other inheritance which does not come from God. The idea that all our congenital illnesses and biological flaws is all designed by God is deal breaker with regards to theism for me. Atheism makes more sense than that. This is another one of the those things where you simply cannot have it both ways.
I would agree in the sense that this was the only way for God to have children, and there is nothing superficial about it. And frankly it is the biological parentage which is the more superficial one. But no matter how superficial, that other inheritance is there and we should not pretend otherwise, because we can descend back to being animals again if we are not careful.
And I don’t get this at all. It sounds like a justification for entitlement when the fact is that we have none… or universalism, I guess. And while I am not hostile to universalism, I am not favorable to a justification that is a little too contrived either. All kinds of things get in the way and in-between – sin being the biggest but hardly the only one. God is spirit and the physical/fleshly nature of our existence does get in the way also. And choice is another important one without which the nature of our relationship is fundamentally distorted.
But perhaps this one of those things where we shall simply have to agree to disagree.
But doesn’t that sound a bit too much like a “two kingdoms” approach (which - granted - does have some scriptural language behind it). A large part of our contemporary struggle today in combatting the “science vs. faith” conflict mentality is to insist that there is no alternate Kingdom that is not of God, but that the entire world, geologically ancient to now, both physically and spiritually - all of it is God’s domain. (I see Biologos as an organization pushing this I think - and I agree with it myself). I know that reawakens all the theodicy issues you mention - and I don’t see any way around that. But there it is.
Amen to that too. I have no need to get people to agree with me either - since I’m just another student along with all the rest of humanity. So while it could be enlightening or sharpening to think aloud together or kick it around - and I gladly do so; I’m happy to leave it where it is too.
One thing that is making me a little uncomfortable and wary is when it looks like you are straying a bit too far from traditional Christianity. I am all about accepting the adjustments needed to embrace science and evolution, but keeping them only to the minimal changes needed. Too often, it seems to me, this unavoidable challenge is taken as an excuse for changing the religion completely to something nearly unrecognizable, till it hardly seems any different than popular culture. It is not that I am hostile to that kind of religion, but only that the reconciliation with science doesn’t require anything of the sort. And the fear that this is some kind of slippery slope is one of the reasons for resistance to science. The acceptance of science and Christianity as compatible is too important for this to be used as an excuse for pushing non-traditional theology.
I am not too concerned with the analogy of adoption – God is more a Father to me than my biological dad. Other parallel metaphors that imply the intimacy, reality and irreversibility of the relationship (such as being born again and being a new creation) reinforce that, plus the accounts of his fatherly providential interventions in the life experiences of many, including my own.
Our bodies as well as our minds and spirits do come from God. From whom else could they come? Are we created in the image of the evil one? No, we are created in the Image of God, Who gives us life and all that we have.
But life comes with the reality of death. The miracle of our minds and bodies comes with the reality of congenital defects and diseases. The ability to love comes with the reality of hatred.
God does not create death, disease, and sin, but God surely allows them. Life is not lying around being lazy. Life is taking risks for ourselves and others.
God created us to be loving as God is. But also like God we must choose to be good and loving, not forced to be good and loving, we must make a choice for God or for ourselves. Thus we have the Fall where humans learned what sin was all about by becoming sinners.
God created us as God’s children, created in God’s own Image, just as our parents procreated and parentally created us in their images. We have the choice of honoring our earthly parents and our divine Parent by choosing to live a responsible life in a real world of joy and failure, suffering and hope, love and death.
God does not have a body. Created in the image of God has nothing to do with our bodies and biology.
Exactly. I certainly agree that this is all a part of God’s intention. But the word “design” is misleading because it makes us think of blueprints and this is contrary to the nature of life.
Yes. Not quite the words I would use but I think we essentially agree. I certainly do not think we had to become sinners or participate in evil in order to learn about it. In fact, I think that is a classic meme of temptation where the tempter convinces the innocent that this is what is required for them to be an adult. But it is not true. These things do not make an adult or grant maturity or wisdom.
If you have already been achieved an “adoption” that is irreversible, why does Paul describe salvation as a “race” that is not over until death (2Tim 4:6-8)?
Earlier in his life, Paul stating that he could not judge himself eternally saved (1Cor 4:3-5). Yet you judge yourself eternally saved. Please explain this contradiction.
If your “adoption” is irreversible, why does Paul tell believers that must have “ endurance … receive what is promised” (Heb 10:36) and why does he urge believers to “run with perseverance the race” (Heb 12:1)?
If your “adoption” is irreversible, why does Paul state that he himself could be “disqualified” from the “race” of salvation (1Cor 9:24-27)?
Because he is eager for reward after having served faithfully and energetically? (Yes, there are degrees of reward.) He was in no danger of losing his adoption, already being a new creation created by God and having no fear that God was going to trash it!
There is no contradiction because that is not what he is talking about. You are adding to the text and inferring something that is not there. He is talking about his faithfulness* being judged, because we will not know our ranking, our “place at the table” until we get there – that is not for us to judge. He is not worried about whether or not he is likely to become unborn (as in unborn again!).
If he was talking about his eternal salvation, do you really think he cared very little??
We covered this in the other conversation, if memory serves. Perseverance and endurance are birthday presents when we are first born again. We are to test ourselves (remember that?). If we are not enduring and not persevering, then we should really be questioning ourselves as to whether or not we are truly joint heirs, now, with Christ! We should not be confident at all!
Again, you are not seeing the forest for the trees and not even looking at the immediate context particularly well. Once more, you have added ‘salvation’ where it does not belong!
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize?
Only one person is going to be saved? Is that what you think he means? Is he talking about being disqualified and thrown out of the race? No, he is talking about being disqualified from winning, winning the wreath of first place.
Run so that you may obtain it.
It is a family competition among loving siblings, so to speak.
(May I invoke Hebrews 5:11 again? 
)
*That varies among believers. I certainly don’t consider myself particularly faithful, nor energetic.
He doesn’t. ‘Salvation’ was inserted by you. He is speaking of the Christian’s earthly life. And it’s not over until death. Funny how that works.
He sounds pretty confident, wouldn’t you say, before ‘that day’?
So noted. [I’m presuming this was probably directed at me.]
I’m certainly not here to try to unsettle people from any steadfast convictions to follow the Spirit. I only hope to help provide perspectives that help remove already-existing stumbling blocks for those already plagued by such things - especially unfortunate man-made stumbling blocks.
I think occasionally some traditions need to give way for truth and relationship. And I want to attend to those discernments as the Spirit may lead. Also - what I hear from others (including many here such as yourself) is part of my necessary spiritual attention. To that end, certainly take whatever (if anything) is useful and ignore everything else.
1 Like