Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
The whole debate about whether it is about a natural birth (aka being born again) or an adoption is an exercise in selective understanding. There is the aspect of being born again. Evidently this was a common thought to the Jews when they took converts into Judaism. They were treated as if they had been born with blood linking back to the Patriarchs.
But adoption was used by Paul for a reason. He was noting that we did not have a position simply because we were granted it by birth, but that we were chosen to be in that position. Parents may choose to have children, but they don't get to choose who will be the result of their union. They get what they get. But when you adopt, you get something that already is. The person is already defined. They are black, white, Asian, etc. They were children of wealthy, intelligent people who were killed in a car accident. Or the offspring of a junkie who didn't have any idea who the father was and CPS took the child away at birth. And the adoptive parents get to choose.
God has chosen. He would choose us all, but we would all have to answer the call to repentance. But he takes all who will. And makes them sons.
|
Great points here.
Lee's point was poorly taken: adopted children are not genuine children.
It's interesting to note that Lee never challenged Paul's many teachings on adoption (esp. Romans and Galatians), but on how all of Christianity had missed the point completely -- that is, of course, until he came along.