Doctrine of Adoption

This is only my opinion and it can be changed if someone wants to correct me.

Man divorced God as a parent when man chose sin.

When a person is divorced in real life from their parents (and believe it or not this has happened in several states), it requires adoption to re-establish that legal union of parent/child relationship.

We are adopted upon salvation.

We have simply re-established the relationship of parent/child by our choice between a life of sin or accepting the grace that Jesus offers us.

Parents in real life have to offer to the child the opportunity to return. It is their choice to do this.

Jesus' grace was offered to Christians who chose to accept it and restore the relationship through adoption.

Simple.

 

Jesus is offering the adoption to the man who is saved.

I never meant this to sound like an
Arminian (sp?) belief. At the Holy Spirit's offer man accepts. Not of man's own doing. That is why I said the quote below.

Is this what you mean by total opposition? Did this explain it, or am I still wrong. I don't know, you are the expert, I am simply giving what my opinion would be. (I'm not being rude, really, maybe I don't understand it properly) I'm open to correction with pleasure.

This is how I learn.

 

Adoption is something that is yet future and Romans 8:23 makes this clear:
"Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly WAITING for the adoption, the redemption of our body."
The adoption takes place therefore at the redemption of our bodies. That, of course, is yet future. Believers are predestined for this adoption (Eph.1:5), so it is as good as done, but it is still yet future.
By what I have read on this, it is only called adoption because there is simply no better word to call it. The closest thing, (I have heard anyway) is "Son Placing". It is a much stronger term than what we think of as adoption. We think of adoption as an unrelated child being officially accepted into a family.
This term, however says of the one adopted, "This is my son."
This is what the Lord Jesus did for us: Made us as if we were literal sons.
Justification? Regeneration? Different things.

 

Adoption granted an adopted son all the priveleges of blood relation, including the right to a portion of the inheritance of the father.

Most of the benefits of adoption are future in nature, when in Glory we shall be partakers of the inheritance of the Father. Still, for everyone saved by God's grace, the adoption has taken place already and we have that earnest of the Spirit, or guarantee of the benefits of salvation. We also have the knowledge that we are the sons of God inasmuch as we are chastained.

Adoption is a distinctive doctrine because it specifically describes the permanent, familial relationship of the believer to Christ and to the Father.

 

I tend to go with MTA. Adoption is not a Hebrew word it is a Roman word. Paul used it, John did not."It means the taking by one man the son of another manto be his son, so that that son has all of the advantages of a son by birth."(quote by Evans Great Doctrines of the Bible).For a good look at the doctrine of adoption go to Great Doctrines of the Bible and study pages 161-163.It's a nice little article,short sweet pretty complete.

 

MTA is correct; however, it is not just a future thing. Sure, we "inheret" our Father's gifts, at a future date. But, we can NOW cry to Him as our Father.

This goes along with once saved always saved doctrine.

It is my belief that upon salvation we HAVE eternal life. (Ref: John 3:16) Present tense. At the moment of salvation we have been adopted by the Father through Christ.

We are like a rebellious child. When we rebel we are chastened by our Father.

Before we are saved, our father is Satan. (can't remember the ref. but you pastors know it.) After salvation, (adoption offered to us by the Holy Spirit, only through the grace of Jesus) our father becomes God.

As MTA said, in legality there is no difference between adoption and blood father in the eyes of the law.

For example, I adopted my wife's three daughters when their father's parental rights were taken away by the state.

Their birth certificates have actually been changed and if someone pulls their birth certificate, as far as legality and anybody in the future knows, I am the legal FATHER. And, the birth certificate never mentions that it was an adoption. Just like Christ's blood covers our past history. Our New birth certificate is God, our father, with no references to Satan's lost parental rights.

No "ifs", "ands", or "buts".

 

Well Phillip you have a picture of adoption up close and personal. I agree.

 

One of the most cockamamie KJVO arguments is that the NIV denies Jesus' Deity by calling Joseph His father in Luke 2:43.

Joseph knew he wasn't Jesus' NATURAL father, but by both Jewish and Roman law, he was Jesus' legal and de-facto earthly father. He was married to His mother when He was born. He was raised from childhood by Joseph, who also taught Him the carpenters' trade.

I believe the Israeli men had an obligation to raise their brothers' children if the bro died.

My dad was raised by a stepmother; he knew his bio mom had lit out for parts unknown while he was a baby, but he always called his stepmom "Mom" & I always called her "Grandma". That's what's on her tombstone.

I believe adoption is an act of man, governed both by the law of the land and by reality. I believe adoption by CHRISTIAN step-parents is largely influenced by GOD, and adoption from genuine love is ALWAYS a good thing.