Davo - good points! Thanks.
God shows no partiality. As Acts 10:35 says, “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.”
Here are some Eastern Orthodox perspectives on “imputed righteousness”:
I think I make a good OCA (Orthodox Church in America) Prospect. And even a better, patched member.
I have to go buy some cheese now. Then come back to this discussion!
What’re your thoughts on the concept of “being born again”?
Davo, there is no Greek word in all of the New Testament that should be translated as “adoption.” For years, I was greatly puzzled as to why so many translators so render it.
The Greek word is υιοθεσια (huiothesia) and literally means “placing as sons” or “sonship.” I suppose that some translators have guessed that this placing of sons was accomplished by adoption. But there is another way to place a son that Paul describes in the passage below:
I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive huiothesia. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. (Galatians 4:1-7)
As I see it, Paul is declaring that we were true children of God, and we are now true sons of God, but we are still spiritually immature and so we have not been able to receive our full inheritance from God. But the day will come when some of God’s will become spiritually mature, and will receive full sonship. Then, we will enjoy our inheritance to the fullest!
So far I have encountered only two translations that correctly render υιοθεσια as “sonship”—the Diaglot and Darby. However, the following translators of the following versions, seem to have had the right idea:
Tischendorf—recognition as sons
NIV—full rights as sons
Message—our rightful inheritance
BBE—the place of sons
Here’s a good article here, from today’s Patheos evangelical newsletter. It might have some good content - for reflection here.
I know I will kick myself for advancing this but pray tell, what examples?
Or I could tell him he is already a child of the living YHWY God and at some point he should check out how God sent his son Jesus, and what he did. Same story, different paradigm.
And I can warn him against people who would staunchly tell him ‘he has to believe in Jesus’ to have any acceptance with God. Balderdash.
Dialogue between LLC and Chat. …the answer is amazingly simple:
Chad, not Chat
Sorry, Chad. I was chatting to a friend in London - via Google Hangouts. So I see where the “Chat” came from.
Thanks, d and t are close.
Well… the apostle John’s warning is the exact opposite to yours:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:36)
Your sarcasm shows how shallow your understanding of people and of God is. I appreciate your position and acknowledge the validity of your post, but you and many here continue to view scripture in a archaic view that is unfortunately for you dying, you can continue to persevere, to no avail, or we can realize that the understanding of the scriptures is evolving. And that evolving will both continue and bring great fruit.
Don, you are above this, just deal with the issue at hand and dispense with your idea of being a great bible scholar. That is my sarcasm. And my
But ‘no view is right’, Chad. Right?
I will address this separately, your black and white view of scripture is compelling and quite worth investigating, but there are other views, and you are continually shunning them. The Idea that I will not get into a bible verse confrontation, is exactly what I posted about above. Many great folks have been scarred by the very veracity you and others portray in trying to use scripture to get your view across. No offense, but you are doing damage.
I do not understand?
Paidion, there is absolutely no guesswork at all on the Greek… adoption is the correct rendering of υἱοθεσία uiothesia — being the construction of… υἱός + τίθημι = son + to place/set/assign/constitute/appoint/render — thus in the context of Gal 4:5 “sonship” = “adoption”, that is… a placing or bestowing into the condition or position of a son.
For any alien (without God and without hope) beyond the commonwealth of Israel and thereby beyond ‘sonship’ to THEN in the gospel be BROUGHT INTO ‘sonship’ was by that very and gracious act of God thereby ADOPTED, i.e., sonship was thus conferred/bestowed — that’s how Paul uses the term. Don’t believe me? Well perhaps consider the following…
Heinrich Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
The υἱοθεσία is here, as it always is, adoption (see on Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:15; and Fritzsche, in loc.),—a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the signification of the word allows no other interpretation, and the context requires no other. Previously not different from slaves (Galatians 4:1-3), as they were in the state of νηπιότης, believers have now entered into the entirely different legal relation towards God of their being adopted by Him as children.
Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges
τὴν υἱοθεσίαν. The article = that νίοθ. of which we all know, or perhaps “our” νίοθ. νίοθ., Romans 8:15; Romans 8:23; Romans 9:4; Ephesians 1:5. Before, we were only potentially sons (Galatians 4:1), and were in fact enslaved (Galatians 4:3), but now are both recognized as sons officially and enjoy the privileges of the position. Observe “adoption,” for strictly we have no claim. It is of God’s grace that we become members of His family in the truest sense.
Earth to MM, yes I think you should kick yourself. Here, I’ll even give you the boot.
Put God first, and love others as yourself. Of course people in the ancient days understood this. Do we not understand this today? Yes, but many do not follow it. That’s the problem. The spiritual immaturity of the human race hasn’t changed much. Just because people wear suits instead of loin cloths and drive fancy cars instead of going horseback doesn’t mean that we’re all grown up now. There are still liars, cheaters, murderers, adulterers, self seeking ambitious people, haters, etc.etc. just as there were back in the day. And just as there was a people of God back then, so there is today.
First your answer is a bit condescending… but you have not given one example:
Since you have obviously been offended, I removed the final paragraph from my post. I don’t think the first paragraph could be regarded as sarcasm.
I won’t ask you to alter your many posts in which you have resorted to putdowns and other various negativity toward me and/or my posts. If you have no conscience about it, forget it.