Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Either "adoption" is a metaphor or "born again" is a metaphor - we know that "born again" is the reality, not the adoption.
|
Once again returning to ploy #2,
EvanG is presenting a false choice set.
Nearly every English translation in existence uses "adoption" for all 5 of Paul's uses of the word. Witness Lee comes along, declares himself the MOTA, out to "recover" the true Bible, thus discrediting every other translator for half a millennium, and all his adherents shout for joy, not knowing what they do.
From Kittel, regarding the O.T. use of word, "
Adoption confers equality with physical sons. The O.T. has legitimation rites that serve this purpose; cf. Gen 30:3 and perhaps Ruth 4:16-17 (where Naomi recognizes the child of Boaz and Ruth as the rightful heir of her dead son.)"
Also from Kittel, "
... Only Paul uses this term. His aim is to show that the sonship of the believers is not a natural one but is conferred by divine act. The term might refer either to the act or the result. In Rom 9.4, relating to Israel, adoption is associated with the covenant and the promises. It means freeing from the law in Gal 4.5. In Rom 8.15 freedom comes from the spirit of sonship in virtue of Christ's all-transforming act. Eph 1.5 traces it back to God's foreordination and thus leaves no room for boasting. In Rom 8.23 the adoption is future, this teaches us that we always need God, but also that His purpose does not change."
Contrary to
EvanG's thought, adoption/sonship is not being born again, nor does it conflict with being born again or regenerated. Obviously Lee's theology has pigeon-holed your thinking in conflict with the ministry of Paul. That's unfortunate. Paul's thought here includes Israel in the past and our future in glory.
Going back to the beginning of this discussion, the Roman laws for adoption supersede and exceed those for children of natural birth. Obviously Paul thought this was important for the church. Adoption relates to our status as sons of God.
Under Roman laws, born sons could actually be disowned, but adopted sons were "chosen" and thus enjoyed numerous perks like inheritance and a security like no other.
It's sad to see
EvanG reject these spiritual blessings which we have in Christ because of Lee's misunderstandings of these truths. If you don't understand Paul's use of the word "adoption," then please don't use your misunderstanding to condemn the rest of the body of Christ.
It should always be remembered that all of Lee's errant teachings have a few characteristics in common. First, they were designed to distinguish his ministry from the rest of the body of Christ. Secondly, they afforded him opportunity to critique the rest of the body of Christ. Thirdly, the teachings resulted in the LC's being puffed up against their brethren.