Predestination Unto Adoption
One of the disheartening things I came to realize after studying the biblical subject of adoption was the near universal misunderstanding of this doctrine among Christian commentators. My study began with a working definition of adoption I first encountered years ago from a short book called Subjects of Sovereignty by Andrew Telford, a one-time professor at Philadelphia College of Bible.105Telford stressed a definition based on Romans 8:23, which defines the word “adoption” as the future redemption of our body, and therefore not to our present and general redemption per se, except in terms that our spiritual redemption makes our future, bodily redemption possible. Recently, however, I wrestled with Paul’s discussion of “adoption” in Galatians 4 and began second-guessing Telford’s conclusions. I think it is a natural tendency for someone like myself who has no formal seminary training (and but little, formal Greek language study) to yield to the person of superior qualifications. Viewing it from the other end, I understand this tendency for the credentialed person to inwardly scorn (not too strong a word if we are to be honest) the thoughts of another who has not endured the same rigors and expense of specialized education. We are all too human. Even as a composer I have to admit of this tendency to scorn the music critic who can’t play an instrument but who has much to say about the structure of music on the back of a classical CD. Imagine, then, the seminarian who is discussing eschatology with a non-seminarian and finding out that the word “chilianism” means nothing to the person with whom he’s talking. The seminarian will find it hard to accept the amateur’s thoughts simply upon that basis. Along these lines I remember an elderly, if annoyed, Catholic layman who once confided to me that his priest presumed to understand religion, when in fact he didn’t even know that the etymology of the word “religion” came from the Latin religio, which means to bind. I said little, of course, since I, too, was ignorant of the etymology of “religion.” I mention this as an example of how all of us can have a decided attitude about, or be influenced by, credentialism and in-house jargon.
Thus, because I too sometimes find credentialism intimidating, I was recently tempted to defer to the commentator who exposited Galatians 4 in The Pulpit Commentary (while studying the subject of adoption). I was completely bowled over by the commentator’s Greek parsing in Galatians 4 that seemed to leave no corner of the passage’s syntax untouched. My own edition of The Pulpit Commentary is a WWII era edition that hearkens back to the original late 19th century edition by British theologians,lvi and some of the writers in this multi-volume work think nothing of interrupting their exposition with a typical comment such as, “Erasmus says…” and then reeling off eight to ten lines in Latin, none of which, of course, I understand (especially since my high school Latin was nearly thirty years ago and never very good). So then, I have habitually found it natural to think I ought to defer my interpreting skills to one who has mastered all the tools of study. After all, it would seem that one so diligent in the treatment of Greek prepositions in Galatians 4 would almost certainly not misinterpret the essence of the passage.
How this commentator interpreted Galatians 4 in The Pulpit Commentary seemed to coincide with what other commentators thought. Nearly all seemed to agree that the “child” of Galatians 4:1 is a picture of a man who becomes redeemed and therefore adopted into God’s family. This happens through a process in which the man comes into a greater realization of his sinfulness because of the law, which rouses him to a greater awareness of his conscience. The man is thus more markedly shown his sinful shortcomings which helps him to understand his need for a Savior. Again, all of the traditional commentary resources I surveyed interpreted Galatians 4:1-7 in this manner—that is, they treated it essentially as a reiteration of the argument Paul gives in the previous chapter. To give us a proper idea of the flow of Paul’s argument, let us look at the contiguous passage of Galatians 3:19-4:7:
19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:19-29).
1Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ (Gal. 4:1-7).
Again, most scholars and commentators take the position that Paul is essentially repeating his argument of chapter 3:19-29 in 4:1-7; thus, a man is trained by the law to recognize his sinfulness in order that he might receive the work of Christ and be adopted into God’s family. The idea here, according to one Calvinistic thinker, is to imagine a man in court being acquitted for some crime. That is one thing. But imagine if the judge were then to say, “Yes, I’ve dismissed your crime—but now I’m going to adopt you as my son.” Such would be an astonishing gesture of kindness.
Now, in one sense I would agree that God adopts us into His family once we receive the work of Christ. In this sense we might say we are adopted by God. But is this the “adoption” of which Paul speaks in Galatians 4:1-7? I don’t think it can be—and hopefully this will also be evident to my readers as we biblically evaluate the passage. You see, to agree with most scholars and commentators that Galatians 4:1-7 is essentially a repeat of the argument in Galatians 3:19-29 would mean that the word ‘heir’ in Galatians 3:29 is a redeemed person, while in the very next verse the word ‘heir’ would have to mean an unredeemed person.
Consider the culmination of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3. He talks of the man whose exposure to the law quickens his conscience until at last he believes in Christ. His spiritual journey has resulted in redemption, and he now stands with faithful Abraham to receive God’s promises and inheritance. Thus this promise of inheritance makes him an heir, and this is the concluding thought of Galatians 3. In the next verse, however—indeed, in practically the subsequent phrase—Paul is still talking about an heir. As we follow out the heir of 4:1 through the verses that follow, virtually all commentators agree that the heir is in bondage to the elemental rudiments of the world (i.e., the law mentioned in Galatians 3) until he experiences redemption. If, then, they hold the heir of 3:29 to be saved (and we have no argument with that), how is it that they hold the heir in 4:1 to be unsaved ? In other words, what sense would there be for Paul to make such an inconsistent use of the word “heir”? Are we to believe that the apostle Paul is such a poor teacher as to further confuse the already confused Galatians with a hermeneutic that defines the heir of 3:29 to be a saved man (living above the law), to defining an heir in 4:1 to mean an unsaved man (living under the law)? What is the likelihood of that? And yet this flip-flopping definition of “heir” is what scholars and commentators say we ought to believe, since “adoption,” they claim, means the coming into the family of God. Or again, we must ask how one could be an heir awaiting inheritance in a family and not yet have entered the family itself? Keep in mind that in the 1st century there were no verse or chapter divisions in the original New Testament autographa, and so the whole passage about heir in Galatians 3:29-4:7 has an even greater sense of continuity than that found in the Bibles we have today. Thus, it seems beyond credibility that such a flip-flopping interpretation of ‘heir’ by these scholars and commentators can be correct.
Thankfully, a more reasonable explanation of Galatians 3:29-4:7 can be given. To do so we must return to a biblical definition of “adoption” that we considered earlier, one that promises to logically work in all the passages in which the word “adoption” occurs. We will consider first how the word “adoption” is defined in Romans 8:23. Second, we will examine how the believer’s suffering in Romans 8 mirrors the very groanings of creation, a suffering from which adoption will one day release the believer. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we will see how the sons are described as already having the first fruits of the Spirit as they eagerly await their adoption which has not yet taken place:
12Therefore brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23Not 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. 24For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. 26Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered (Rom. 8:12-26).
Now, as we explore this subject further, I doubt we can do better here than to offer Andrew Telford’s very thorough explanation of adoption, and what adoption means for the believer. We give his explanation here in its entirety from his book, Subjects of Sovereignty:
I. The meaning of Adoption
What does Adoption really mean? It does not mean what we usually take it to mean. Neither does it mean the “adopting of a child.” Adoption in the Bible does not mean the same as the word Adoption when used in relation to the legal transaction of receiving into the family as a son or daughter, a child who has been born of other parents. Evidently the translators failed to find a word in the English language that would express to us clearly, the full meaning of the transaction of God Almighty, when God by a divine act, placed a certain destination and position for the believer. The translators have used the word Adoption as the only word at their disposal, to express this act of God.
Adoption means to be “Son Placed”, not “son made”. You are made a Son the moment you are saved by God’s grace. Now, as a son there are certain privileges and benefits God by His sovereign106 acts has provided for those who are saved. No one has been son placed as yet. One time you will be. You belong to the Lord Jesus Christ now, just as much as you ever will. You have not arrived at the goal which God has predestinated you to—which goal is Adoption.
Ephesians 1:
6. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,”
In the early days of the Roman Empire when a boy was born into the family, he was cared for by his parents till be was twenty-one years of age. At the age of twenty-one, they took the child and there placed him in the market place before the public. He was son-placed. From that time on he could sign his own name to legal documents, and went forward with the full authority of a man. This act at the market place did not make him a son; he was a son when he was born into his parents’ family. At the age of twenty-one he was son-placed.
Adoption in the Bible means “son placed.” I want you to notice Ephesians 2:7
7. “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in HIS kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”
That unfolding of the riches of His grace will be experienced by redeemed men when we are son-placed…
(Telford quote continued)
II. The Time of Adoption
Did you ever notice the word Adoption as set forth in Romans 8:23? Here in this verse we read:
23. “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
…What is that something that Paul and the saints in Rome were waiting for? It is called by the Spirit of God in this verse the Adoption. He then tells us when it will take place—at the redemption of our bodies. This verse gives us two reasons which tell us that the time of Adoption is future. The first proof or reason that Adoption is still future is that we are waiting for the Adoption to wit. It could not have taken place if they were waiting for Adoption to happen at some future time. In the closing part of the verse, it tells us that it will take place at the redemption of our bodies. We now have redeemed souls in unredeemed bodies.
We see here that the matter of Adoption or being son-placed is in the future. Many teach that the new birth and Adoption mean the same thing. This is not the teaching of the Word of God. As a Christian, the new birth took place when I received Christ and became a child of God. Adoption will take place when I receive my glorified body.
(Telford quote continued)
III. The Certainty of Adoption
Let us now turn to Ephesians 1:4, 6
4. “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:”
6. “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.”
…For our blessing, and for our comfort, and that we might have full assurance, God has made a tremendous statement in this Scripture regarding the certainty of our Adoption. Notice this verse: “Having predestinated us unto the Adoption.” Our Adoption is in the predestination purpose of God for the Church which is His Body. Remember that the word “Predestinate” always carries with it certainty and surety. Our Adoption is certain since it was predestinated that every believer shall arrive at that goal. Let us look up and thank God, that one day we shall be Son-Placed. Bless God for the assurance of it, and let us daily live in anticipation of this coming experience. God has given us this truth to strengthen our faith and deepen our hope. God says we will be Son-Placed, and please remember that God cannot lie.
(Telford quote continued)
IV. The Desirability of It
May we turn again to the Word of God to find what the Spirit of God makes known to us in relation to this matter in Romans 8:23
23. “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
Thousands of God’s dear saints would rather be in Heaven than on earth today. Hundreds of them suffer as they live in bodies that produce pain and groanings. They need to be released from the world of sin and wickedness, and know something of the relief from pain and affliction that will come when they see Him at the redemption of their bodies…. Remember that this world is not the sweet Beulah Land that we sing about in the hymns. This is a world of sin and chaos. Paul tells us in Philippians 1:23
23. “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”…
than to continue living in a world that is doomed for judgment. Paul desires to be with Christ. In Romans 8:18 to 32, Paul speaks about the glory that is to come. He tells us there is something better on ahead for the child of God, something better than even the best that we have ever enjoyed or expressed down here while in our bodies of humiliation. He tells us in Roman 8:22 that all creation is groaning for something better to come. In verses 22 to 25 he tells us that the Christian is groaning also. He says in verse 23, that not only they, but even we, ourselves, groan within ourselves; waiting for, wishing for, longing for, and wanting that better portion that God has provided for his children. In Philippians 1:23 Paul says,
23. “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”
Here Paul is thinking of the redemption of his body. He is looking and longing for that day to come when he shall leave his body of humiliation behind him and rise to be with Christ. Adoption will never take place until that day when the trump of God will sound. Somehow, there is a tug in every believer’s heart that pulls that way. Paul here uses that verse, we ourselves groan within ourselves to show the desire of saints for that better portion. The saints of God desire, they wait, and hunger for the Adoption to take place. Oh, to be like Him, to be like the Lord!…
(Telford quote continued)
V. The Present Manifestation of Adoption
We read in Romans 8:15
15. “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”
We thank God that we have received the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour. Notice in this verse that these believers in Rome had also received the Spirit of Adoption, and the Spirit of Adoption is the Holy Spirit. In this verse he is designated as the Spirit of Adoption. He is in your heart and life now. Do you see this as your present experience of Adoption? As a believer, you have not yet been adopted but you do have the Spirit of Adoption. This verse does not teach that Adoption took place when you were saved, for this verse does not inform us concerning your present experience of Adoption but the present manifestation of Adoption. All believers are indwelt by the Spirit of God and they have the Spirit of Adoption here and now.
(Telford quote continued)
VI. The Participants In Adoption
Notice carefully the closing verse found in Paul’s statement in Galatians 4:5
5. “To redeem them that were under the law that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Let us notice the phrase “that we might receive the adoption of sons.” By the use of the word “we”, Paul identifies himself with the believers in Galatia, and here we notice that believers are the ones who will be adopted. Adoption belongs only to sons. Let me refer again to the custom in ancient Rome. The father took his boy, that one who was his son to the market place, and that son was son-placed or Adopted. Only those who are sons will ever be adopted. Have it clear in mind that when you are saved you are made a son. Now because you are a son, you shall be son-placed. This is another of the benefits of being a son of God. What benefits are you now receiving as a Christian? True it is, we have experienced the pardon of our sins. We have the knowledge of our salvation in Christ.
We have daily communion with Him. We have the privilege of service, and all of this with persecution.The things that I am receiving and enjoying here and now while I am in this body are manifold, but as a son of God there are better things to come. The Bible says in 1 John 3:2
2. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” lvii
Notice again what it says in Galatians 4:4
4. “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,”
That was the time when the divine clock in the future purpose of God struck. Let me ask you something. Why did Jesus Christ come ? Why was he born? Why did he come into this world at that definite time? In Galatians 4:5, we find the answer.
5. “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”…
(Telford quote continued)
VII. The One That Procured Our Adoption
In these closing remarks I just want to emphasize some of the things in Galatians 4:4, 6 that are clearly set forth concerning the purpose of Christ’s coming. We notice in these two verses that the Lord Jesus Christ is the One who procured our adoption for us. He made Adoption possible. Surely our hearts should go out in praise to Him who came to make possible all future blessings. “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.” “That we might receive the Adoption of sons.” The Lord Jesus left the glory that was His with the Father. He was born as a babe in yonder manger, that we might receive the Adoption of sons. Jesus Christ did not merely come into this world to save you from the drink habit; to save you from blowing cigarette smoke through your nose and mouth, to save you from swearing, or stop you from stealing, or pardon your sins, . . . that was not the main purpose. There is a higher and greater purpose in His coming than that. Christ came not only to save you from the penalty and power of your sins, but He came that you might be son-placed. On the cross He died to take care of my sins, and when I see Him another great miracle shall take place. I shall be “son-placed.”
We as believers will be an amazement to the angels as they stand back with a gaze that shall be unbelievable and indescribable. They will behold the wonderful grace of the Lord Jesus son-placing saved sinners. Ephesians 2:7
7. “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”
We may not be like Jesus now. Oh, we are so much unlike him. Thank God, some day every saint will be like him. That is the real purpose of the Saviour. God had in mind to have sons who would be like his Son. To be son-placed is to be like the Lord Jesus. Friend, that is just what the Gospel does. The man who turns to the Lord Jesus Christ, who puts his faith and trust in the Lord Jesus, can have this abiding hope. Heaven and the likeness of Christ lies before him. This is inexpressible. This is the clear teaching of the Word of God regarding the matter of Adoption. Adoption is a definite act of God whereby God sets a goal for the believer. It will take place when we are son-placed. Romans 8:23
“And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”
When I am son-placed, I will have a new body. It is future, it is certain, it brings perennial joy to think about it. Then we will be there.
If a man is not saved, he will never be there when the son-placing takes place, but if a man receives Jesus Christ as his Saviour he will not miss being son-placed.
This subject has to do with the sovereignty of God. Adoption is one of the future blessings for the man who believes in Christ as planned by the wisdom of the Triune God. No child of God need ever be afraid of losing his Adoption papers. The word of God is eternally settled in Heaven. You will never be allowed to go out into the blackness of darkness forever. What a joy, what a hope, what a satisfaction to know that “we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (End of Telford quote)
Note in particular Telford’s distinction between a son receiving the Spirit of adoption versus a son receiving the adoption itself. Newer translations often put the word Spirit in lower case, i.e., spirit (e.g. Rom. 8:15 NAS), leaving the impression that one is somehow already experiencing the beginning of adoption whose completion will occur in the future at the time of the redemption of one’s body. Here, for example, is the NAS:
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
This opposing view implied with the word spirit in lower case offers an interesting thought, but we must ask whether it is truly biblical. Much of the argument over whether spirit (Gr. pneumos) should be capitalized has appeared to rest on the discretion of the translators. We should first understand that there are no small case vs. large case distinctions in the original Greek. The earliest copies we have of the Greek New Testament were written in all capital letters with no punctuation and with no division between words. For example, the sentence, “He went to the store to buy eggs,” would have been written,
HEWENTTOTHESTORETOBUYEGGS
Thus, whether or not the word “SPIRIT” is capitalized in translation depends upon what translators believe the context is teaching. All translations seem to agree that the word spirit in the phrase, “you have not received a spirit of slavery” should be in lower case. Not all translations, however, agree about capitalizing the word “Spirit” (as given in the KJV) in the next phrase, i.e., “but you have received the Spirit (a spirit) of adoption,” or even if the article “the” or “a” should precede it. I personally think that an analysis of the surrounding verses argue that “spirit ” ought to be capitalized to read “Spirit,” but that the article should be “a.” First, the idea that we have received a Spirit of adoption, and not the actual adoption itself, seems plain from the fact that the sons of God, as noted by Telford, already have the first fruits of the Spirit but are awaiting their adoption, as verse 23 tells us.107 Furthermore, the fact that the article is missing in front of the word ‘Spirit’ does not mean that the translation must read, ‘a spirit of adoption,‘ anymore than it should have to read, ‘a Spirit of adoption.’ We might say that the phrase, “a Spirit of adoption” is preferable for the same reason that the phrase, “We serve a God of miracles,” is better than the phrase, “We serve the God of miracles.” This latter phrase practically leaves the impression that there are other Gods in existence, but that we serve the particular God who does miracles. (The near and far contexts of Scripture would obviously prevent that the term (Gr. pnuema), if translated “a Spirit,” were arguing for a plurality of Gods.) Thus, by using the phrase “a God of miracles,” the emphasis of the sentence is upon the attribute of God, rather than upon God Himself. For these reasons I think a better translation than the KJV or NAS would be to render the phrase in Romans 8:15 as “a Spirit of adoption,” rather than “the Spirit of adoption” (KJV) or “a spirit of adoption” (NAS) (that is, if one’s responsibility as a translator is to render either “a” or “the,” i.e., instead of “a/the” which would show a possible polyvalent emphasis on both points, i.e., the attribute of the (that is, the one and only) Spirit of God.108
We can only suppose that the NAS and the NIV chose to render the phrase “a spirit of adoption” with the lower case “s” for “spirit” because the article was omitted in front of “SPIRIT,” and because it kept a certain parallelism with the small case of ’spirit’ in the preceding phrase (”the/[a] spirit of slavery”). All of these considerations lead us to ask the question: What other corroborating evidence in Scripture might justify the translation that suggests that “adoption” happens upon conversion? In other words, since verse 23 describes “adoption” as something the sons of God eagerly await while already having the Spirit’s first fruits, what scriptural evidence does the Calvinist present for his view beside commentator opinions? It would appear that the answer is none at all, at least none I have been able to find. Rather, as author T. Pierce Brown exasperatingly states in his article, “Born or Adopted,” the evidence cited by the opposing view relies on the translators’ insistence upon the English dictionary meaning of “adoption:”
The Greek term translated “adoption” is “huiothesia” about which Thayer says, “The nature and condition of the true disciples of Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God.” He adds, “It also includes the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven—i.e., the consummate condition of the sons of God which will render it evident that they are sons of God.” We wish that we and our readers were always able to differentiate between a casual opinion expressed by an “authority,” and a scholarly, definitive conclusion, arrived at and proven by the proper analytical methods. Also, we wish the authority or the student would make a proper distinction between the meaning of a term and the thing to which the term refers in a particular context. For example, “baptizo” means “dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm, etc.” It may refer to immersion in water for the remission of sin,109 being overwhelmed with grief, suffering, etc., or in some denominational terminology, “a water ritual by which one is designated a member of a religious group.”
(Brown quote continued)
So, we suggest to you that the term “huiothesia” means “standing as sons.” Whether it refers to some ’standing’ or ‘position’ which sons may have in a particular situation, or whether it refers to a coming into a position as a son depends on how we actually find it used in the Bible. The only clear statement of which we are aware which indicates its use in the New Testament is the one in which Thayer says “it also includes” in Romans 8:23, which says, “And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body.”
As far as we know, it is not used in the Septuagint, and as far as our limited ability and resources allow us to check, we find no case from Herodotus to the “church Fathers” (including the New Testament) where the word clearly means “coming into a family.”
We admit that all the reference works to which we have access define the word “adoption” as “an act by which a person takes another person into his family,” or words to that effect. But a careful student may notice that none of them in that definition gave as a reference the word “huiothesia” and shows that it was used in that way. In every case we have checked, the “authority” takes the English word, “adopted,” and applies it to what has happened, such as Jacob adopting Ephraim and Manasseh, or Mordeciah adopting Esther, or the daughter of Pharaoh adopting Moses. But the word “huiothesia” is never used about these cases.
(Brown quote continued)
We have no objection to the use of the word “adopted” in those cases, but we do have serious objections when a “scholarly authority” makes a group of statements about “adoption” and assumes, and allows his readers to assume, that he has somehow defined the term “huiothesia” which God used, and which men have erroneously translated “adoption.” The reason we say this is because the word, in any use we have found, never clearly refers to what the term “adoption” means to us—”the act by which a person takes a stranger into his family.”
The etymology of the word suggests that it literally means “standing as a son,” and probably most of us, including the “authorities,” have assumed that means “becoming a son.” Keenly aware of my limited ability, training, and resources for scholarly research, I am still forced to conclude, at this moment, that the word refers to one who is a son coming into a certain standing as a son, but in no case, simply becoming a son, equivalent to what we mean by being born, or adopted. In every case, we think it is not “sonship,” per se, that is being considered, but the standing or position to which the sonship entitles one.
The only verse I know that clearly defines one such aspect of “adoption” is Romans 8:23, to which we previously alluded. The “redemption of the body” cannot refer to our present salvation, for it is “we who have the firstfruits of the Spirit” who are “waiting for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies.” There are four other times the word is used in the New Testament, none of which violates the basic meaning of the term. It is true that they do not as clearly express the idea as this passage, but if one passage sets out what a term means, and no other passages show any other meaning, how better can we discover the meaning of any term?
(Brown quote continued)
In Romans 8:15, we find, “For ye received not the spirit of bondage unto fear, but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, ‘Abba, Father’.” It is apparently assumed by most of us that Paul means, “When you became a son, you received the spirit of a son, whereby you can now say, ‘Father.’ ” My judgment is that the “spirit of adoption” is the spirit of one who is already a son, now looking forward to what Paul expresses in the next two verses—the glorification with Christ when we come into our inheritance as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. Is there anything wrong with the concept that one who is a son should have the “the spirit of sonship”—the spirit in which he yearns for a particular standing as a son (which is what the word “huiothesia” means)?
In Romans 9:4, the Israelites are mentioned as those “whose is the adoption.” Most commentators, I presume, would admit that the term has nothing whatever to do with “being born again,” but refers to their standing as sons. Yet, no commentary of which I am aware does any more than make a statement about the meaning of the English word “adoption” as if it were the meaning of “huiothesia” which all scholars admit means “standing as sons” not “becoming a son.” The point I am making is that “huiothesia” never refers, as far as we can tell, to coming into the family, as being “born again” or literally, “being generated from above” does. It always refers to the standing or position of a son who has the rights and privileges of the inheritance—whatever they may be. In our case, they involve the redemption of the body, and whatever glorification we shall have with Christ.
(Brown quote continued)
This seems to be very close to the idea found in Galatians 4:1-4. The Israelites were heirs, but it did not do them much good as long as they were like bondservants. But God sent forth his Son to redeem them that they might receive the “adoption of sons.” Most of us have apparently assumed that he meant “that they might be adopted as sons.” But it does not say that. Although I do not approve of the NIV in general, I happened to notice right now that it is here translated, “The full right of sons.” I do not know how the translators arrived at the conclusion that this is the correct idea, but I suppose even a blind hog can occasionally find an acorn. Instead of Paul saying that Christ came to redeem the Israelites that they might come into the family of God, he is saying that he came to redeem them that they might receive the “adoption of sons”—the full right of sons—a special position that an adult son will receive as an heir, as verse 7 suggests.
In Ephesians 1:5, we are told that he “foreordained us unto adoption as sons.” This has been understood (or misunderstood) to mean “adopted into the family of God that we might become sons.” It does not say that. What it actually teaches is that he chose us before the foundation of the world that we, who have chosen to be holy and without blemish—sons of God—might receive the “adoption as sons”—the standing or position AS adult sons, to the praise of the glory of His grace, or as verse 14 climaxes it, “Unto the redemption of God’s own possession.”
…I am willing to stick with Paul’s definition in Romans 8:23, unless someone can show that God somewhere gives another one. So far I have not found itlviii(End of Brown quote)
Thus as Brown points out, no commentary regarding the word “adoption” which he resourced defined the translation by the autographa, but rather defined the autographa by the translation, i.e., the tail has been wagging the dog. As a concluding thought upon Brown’s article, perhaps we ought to concede one aspect of the adoption argument to those commentators who have reached a conclusion other than that of Telford and Brown. Huiothesia, or “son placement,” in Roman culture could happen simultaneously, it seems, in the case of a slave who had come of age. In the movie Ben Hur we have such an example as taken from Roman culture, when Judah Ben Hur is publicly declared a son by the centurion whose life Judah saved. In such a case the slave, like Judah Ben Hur, would become the man’s son while at the same time come into all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. As a concession to the opposing view I believe it may be correct to observe that huiothesia can refer in Roman culture to the entering into a family. This might at first appear to be somewhat in deference to Telford and Brown. The point, however, is which of these two definitions (if we grant that there are two definitions) of “adoption” are used in the Bible, or are both definitions in view? T. Pierce Brown’s conclusion is that the biblical contexts which discuss huiothesia never contradict “son-placement” as a son, but do contradict a meaning of becoming a son, and I think his argument is correct in light of Romans 8:23 and Galatians 3:19-4:7. Clearly, in Romans 8, Paul is using the example of a son who is already demonstrating the first fruits of the Spirit. The same holds true for the child of Galatians 4:1. It is the child who is de facto an heir, a “lord of all,” though in a practical sense he differs nothing from a slave. He is subject to the rule of others as though he were a slave despoiled by the world, i.e., he is under guardians and household managers who act at the behest of the father to safeguard the child’s interests. In time it should be natural that the child (Gr. nerion, an infant, or child ) should mature and take his place by his father. A different word is used in Galatians 4:5-7 to describe the nerios of verse 1. The nerios has matured into a huio, i.e., a son.110 Note that Ephesians 4:4-5 is another passage describing adoption along these same lines:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Here it does not speak of “the children of adoption,” as the KJV would have us conclude from its translation, but rather, as the NAS has since properly rendered it, “the adoption of sons (huios).” (Once again the KJV shows a strong predilection for Calvinistic definitions.) The “adoption” of sons is what God shall give all believers. He intended it first for Israel, but not all Israel believed. The gospel was thus opened to the Gentiles, and now all who receive Christ stand as heirs ready to receive the “adoption as sons.“The apostle, then, puts the term “son-placement” in a context of believerhood, or, as would have been the case with Israel, the believerhood God had intended for them. Within the Church there appears to be some “children” (i.e., those who are presumed to be new believers), whose behavior puzzles us. This in turn raises questions about their spiritual paternity. Are they really the children of God, or still the children of wrath? (Eph. 2:3). This question only comes to the forefront if the child remains a child. Presuming the former, the Galatians nevertheless had the appearance of infant, spiritual children (nerios) instead of mature sons (huios), and therefore Paul fears that his labor for them may have been in vain.
The distinction between an infant (nerios), a dependent and somewhat older child (tekna), and a mature son (huios) are important distinctions that Paul maintains whenever these words are present in his discussion of the believer’s position in Christ. Again, Paul’s use of “adoption” in Romans 8:23 cannot be logically understood to mean “an act by which a person takes another person into his family.” The great majority of commentators have merely fed the cause of Calvinism by failing to think logically about these key passages regarding the believer’s future glory. Their influence has made many to suppose that God’s predestination of the believer unto adoption means that some people are chosen for heaven before they are born, while others are ’sovereignly passed over.’ Not only has this error added more chaos to the already existing quagmire of Christian apologetics, but it has sacrificed an opportunity for all Evangelicals to reflect upon the hope of the believer’s future glorification. And so we watch the tail wag the dogma instead of seizing the opportunity to teach the subject of adoption properly. This is the unfortunate direction of the Church, at least the status of the American Church at present. And the same spirit which animates the failure to discern true wisdom in this matter has compounded many other similar errors. In short, all this goes a long way toward explaining the weakness of proper thinking in today’s Evangelical Church and of key doctrines that have ended up redefined in the Calvinist’s hands.
Predestination
We will say but a few words regarding “predestination,”111 since we have largely treated the subject via a backdoor discussion about son-placement. The verses about “predestinate” (or, as Gordon Olson points out regarding the lexical evidence based on over 30 appearances by early church fathers, a word better understood as preappoint ),112 which have been such a bane to some, and yet such a weapon for others in promoting a doctrine of absolute divine sovereignty, is the well-known passage of Romans 8:29-30. Let us begin with verse 22, and I will take the liberty of inserting the essence of Tim Geddert’s understanding into verse 28:
22For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now 23Not 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. 24For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance. 26Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28And we know that in all things (situations) God works together with those who love him for the good, for those who are called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Rom. 8:22-30).
First, note that God foreknows whom He predestinates (preappoints). Calvinists claim that foreknowledge means something more than knowing the future—that it implies the kind of intimate knowledge only a Creator could have for His creation, i.e., the kind which Adam, for example, had for his wife Eve, when he “knew” her (i.e., in Adam’s case, intimately and sexually). Again, however, the Greek word foreknowledge (proginwskw) in extra-biblical sources contemporary with the New Testament era never implies such an attached understanding, but simply means, to know ahead of time113 I will admit to feeling dubious about what such a Calvinistic definition of absolute and decreed foreknowledge actually means for Calvinistic theology with its implied parallel message about Adam ‘knowing’ Eve in sexual union (again, when one considers those statements within Calvinism which stress God’s complete sovereignty), i.e., that the more powerful party does subject the weaker party to all of the greater party’s means and ends, according to the unilateral design of the greater party. How such a view of absolute sovereignty thus escapes the charge of the spiritual rape of human freedom remains to be answered. Or are we mistaken to think that Calvinists are describing persons as something more than computers, which likewise are said to do tasks, when in fact such activities are the mere programmatic responses (i.e., ‘choices‘) predetermined by the Programmer? At any rate, following this Calvinistic line of reasoning (i.e., that foreknowledge means more than just knowing what shall happen in the future), God’s foreknowledge is therefore thought by Calvinists to include all the means and ends of believers and all the means and ends of unbelievers. What the Calvinist fails to properly see, then, is that God’s foreknowledge is a complete foreknowledge of history apart from determining it. God doesn’t have to control history to foreknow it, as Jesus plainly stated in Matthew 11:21.114 The point here is that God has never needed to sin or to have partaken in sin in order to understand the experience of sin. His knowledge includes the knowledge of good and evil, yet He Himself has never sinned to obtain that knowledge. On the other hand, Adam and Eve could only gain the knowledge of good and evil by sinning [because as man (i.e., as being in the state of mannishness) they were persons of a lower order]. This is shown in Genesis 3:22-23:
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
When God said that Adam had now come into the knowledge of good and evil He was not describing Adam’s sheer ability to know anything right or wrong. Before the Fall Adam would have had to know it was wrong to partake of the forbidden fruit, or else he would not have understood God’s command. In Hebrew the word “knowledge” in the phrase “knowledge of good and evil” means a higher, or hidden, or exalted type of knowledge. But the basic element of knowledge was simpler in pre-Fallen Adam. Still, Adam’s conscience told him what was right or wrong. Again, then, the possession of the knowledge of good and evil for Adam was something he obtained by sinning, whereas God has always had the knowledge of good and evil apart from sinning. Yet the Calvinist makes God into a God of sin by insisting that God’s foreknowledge is based upon, nay, even dependent upon, His determination of all history—a history which decrees that men sin. Furthermore, the Calvinist believes that God’s determination of history is only possible if He has experienced history. Thus, to maintain this view that God’s foreknowledge is solely based on determinative experience, I have even seen Calvinists insist that God is outside time and space and therefore experiences history before it happens. James Spiegel, for example, even endorses the idea that God is outside time, space, and emotion. In all this irrationality, one wonders how the Calvinist can also suggest that Adam was really made in God’s image, if on the one hand God is not a being of time, space, or emotion, but Adam is a being of time, space, and emotion. Indeed, what realms are more elementally shared than these?115 This is the irony and irrationality of the Calvinistic position, i.e., that Calvinists decry others of holding a dim view of God’s sovereignty, when, in fact, it is the Calvinist who finds himself forced to view God as small enough not to be able to have foreknowledge unless He controls everything about the future in all its means and ends (and which means and ends in the physical time/space world have to be irrationally understood, since God is said not to inhabit time and space). It would almost be amusing, were it not sad, that Calvinists can swallow so many contradictions while simultaneously holding the line on one conundrum, i.e., God’s non-determinative foreknowledge. But unless one accepts the fact that God’s foreknowledge of history is truly separated from history itself (i.e., not ’separated’ as the Calvinist would define it), one will define foreknowledge so that God is a control monger who unilaterally determines the destinies of both believers and unbelievers. For example, one confused thinker on the internet (who failed to truly separate God’s foreknowledge of history from history itself) so completely stripped Romans 8:29-30 out of its surrounding context about God working with the believer in his earthly life of trial, while also failing to understand Paul’s synopsistic ellipsis that those “whom God foreknew” refers to those whom God foreknew would believe, that he attempted to claim that because God justified those he foreknew, it was impossible that foreknowledge could mean foreknowing only, since God foreknows what everyone will do in the world but not everyone is saved. (Yeah—don’t worry if you didn’t follow that one!) We must understand that a proper, biblical definition of foreknowledge is that God knows everything there is to know, both actually and contingently. This defines foreknowledge as the following: God knows exhaustively what will happen and what could happen without predetermining anyone else’s choices.
But moving on, the ultimate end of the believer is to be with his Lord and to be like Him, and someday the believer will quit the groanings of this life for a life with Him in glory. This is what Paul meant when he said that we are predestined (preappointed) to be conformed to the image of His son. Note how Paul speaks first about the “adoption” (glorification) of our body in Romans 8:23, then proceeds to discuss our conformity to the image of God’s Son in toto in verse 29. Arguably, the adoption might itself constitute this conformity; at the least, it is a part of it. This anticipated state of our bodily glorification is a chief thought behind Romans 8. And the same conclusion in Romans 8:23 about son-placement is again in view when Paul speaks in Ephesians 1 about our predestination (preappointment) unto son-placement, not salvation:
4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children [lit. huiothesia, thus, ‘adoption of sons’] by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Positionally in Christ we are holy and without blame, but experientially we still struggle with sin. The original Greek demands no colon after the phrase, “before him in love,” hence the connective thought may be stronger than what the colon implies, so that it could just as easily translate to the idea that God wants us to be “holy and without blame before him in love—having predestinated [preappointed] us unto the placement of sons,” etc. Even so, the apostle John likewise tells us in 1 John 3:2:
Beloved, now are we the sons [huios] of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is…
Again, when the concept of “predestination” (preappointment) is raised in Ephesians 1:10-12, Paul puts it in the context of our future glorification: 10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Observe here how the believer in Christ is said to be predestined (preappointed) to obtain an inheritance. This is a long way from saying we are predestined to be saved. While salvation is necessary to obtain an inheritance, the Bible (KJV) never says we are predestinated unto salvation, but only unto conformity to the son, predestinated unto son-placement, and predestinated to [obtain] an inheritance. Thus, the same essential thought is expressed each time the word predestinate or predestinated is given in the Scriptures.
Incidentally, many Calvinists like to cite another thought from the Ephesians 1 passage in an attempt to support their theology:
Who [God] worketh all things after the counsel of his will.
Notice, however, that “all things” is contextualized in verse 10 to be merely “all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.” Where, then, is that point of Calvin’s theology, that would tell us that a doctrine of predestination unto salvation is found in any of the passages we have examined? We cannot find such a definition except from commentators who are so convinced that these verses teach Calvinistic doctrine that they are prepared to have Calvin’s terms interpret the translation which then interprets the autographa. This is the sad state of Christian apologetics, because Calvin’s definitions have been accepted regarding foreknowledge, predestination, and adoption. Calvinism teaches that God foreknew us based upon His predestination of us, and that God chose us unconditionally to be in his family before we were ever born. In Calvinism, the Divine will is accomplished without any real choice-based participation of the man. This elimination extends to man predicating his faith, which Calvinists allege is imparted to man apart from his will (though the Calvinist would deny this view of his theology, urging instead that we accept his attempted distinctions between desire and will, terms which, in fact, we have already shown he treats synonymously, if irrationally). Frankly stated, Calvinism has succeeded in fooling many Christians about the real meaning of foreknowledge and predestination because of redefined meanings which culminate in a feel-good theology. Regardless of whether a Christian has good moments or bad moments God, in the Calvinistic view, has already predestined everything that is going to happen to him. I cannot think of a more blissful thought for the Christian. Here every trouble is seen as a good that God is giving us—where even sin itself bows its knee to serve the purposes of God and His pleasure. Well, enough of that view. Calvinism has been a theology of panacea, if we would just be honest about it for a moment. Grown-up Evangelicals cling to this idea of God as ardently as children cling to a belief in Santa Claus, and for pretty much the same reason. And so I am reminded of what Paul told Christians they ought to do in a circumstance where a greater maturity is needed.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
This verse reminds us of what Paul said to the Galatians—When we were once children. So we are heirs and lords of all, but we haven’t yet seized some of the adult things of our faith. Instead we have counted off a long string of chaotic, red-letter days for Christian theology and apologetics by allowing the doctrines of foreknowledge, election, predestination, and adoption to be handled by theological determinists to a point where nothing of true biblical definition has remained. Rather, this ought to be a time for truth-telling in theology about the Lord’s coming and our redemption that “draweth nigh”—a time when we await our adoption as huios, not nerios—mature sons, not infants.
105—since renamed Philadelphia Biblical University
106As the context of Telford’s remarks show, by the word “sovereign” Telford does not mean “sovereign” as the Calvinist would define it.
107Compare Philippians 3:20-21: “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
108A qualifier should be added here for additionally allowing the phrase to be rendered as “a spirit of adoption,” but only because of the reason given by T. Pierce Brown in the article that shortly follows.
109T. Pierce Brown appears to belong to the Church of Christ. Although some in the Church of Christ believe that water baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of personal sins, I do not believe this doctrine is true. For according to Romans 10:9-10, “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Nowhere here, nor in any other biblical passage once it is properly understood, is water baptism implied to be necessary for personal salvation.
110When we were children is in the past tense. But Paul is not really stating that they are no longer children (and therefore mature sons), because elsewhere he states his fear that their bondage to works is so severe that he wonders if his former ministry to them has been in vain. Rather, Paul’s expression is a manner of face-saving speaking so that the Galatians will reconsider their view of works to which they have entangled themselves. To the strong Paul is strong, and to the weak Paul is weak: whatever was the state of the hearts of the Galatians, it does not appear that it was attended with that degree of hubris which caused Paul to take a severer line with the Corinthians. Paul’s manner of speaking—’we were children once‘—would be (for example) like a college senior who had gotten his spiritual walk straightened out with the Lord and was about to graduate with his former college drinking buddies, all backslidden Christians, and who now says to them encouragingly: ‘C’mon guys! We filled our days with drinking once, but we’re graduates now!’ Technically speaking, his college buddies had not yet gotten their walk with the Lord straightened out, nor had any of them graduated yet, but the point is made (by the one rehabilitated) that all of them as impending graduates should now be thinking and behaving differently.
Regarding Galatians 4:1-7, note the following. The fullness of the time of adoption, which the one who is a practical slave is awaiting, was accomplished by the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The emphasis on Christ’s work which provided salvation for the believer is no doubt a main reason why so many have interpreted the word “adoption” as meaning a “coming into the family of God.” But the resurrection of Christ is also what makes the future glorification of the believer’s body possible. We must remember that the “practical slave” has already been established as an heir who stands with faithful Abraham to receive the promises of a faithful God (Gal. 3:29). If we understand huiothesia to be son placement—which Romans 8:23 defines as the redemption of the believer’s body—it enables us to take a different interpretation than that which is usually advanced about this passage. What Paul is really saying is that our adoption was all but effectually accomplished when God’s word of promise about the redemption of the believer’s body was fulfilled by divine deeds, i.e., by the coming of the Messiah who offered himself to God for man’s redemption in the fullest sense, a promise guaranteed by Christ’s resurrection. Thus Paul is not actually stating that our adoption has already de facto taken place, but rather that God by His own deeds has de facto accomplished all that is necessary, so that the son-placement of believers (i.e., the glorification of believers’ bodies) is now a future certainty. For the believer this presumably means that one day he will no longer have to endure the perverse state in which he currently finds himself—that is, living with an intensified knowledge of good and evil. It does not appear that death will similarly deliver the unbeliever from this fallen nature which all men have inherited from Adam. Furthermore, living in the 21st century has given us a somewhat different perspective on this verse. It would have been easier for Paul to have spoken in the manner he did 2,000 years ago, than if he were living today, for Paul lived at a time when nearly all believers who had ever trusted in God had lived and died prior to Christ’s first coming. This is essentially Paul’s perspective, that the son-placement of the majority of believers who had lived up to the time of his writing had to look forward to what God would accomplish through the Messiah in order to make their son-placement a future certainty; thus, “when it pleased the Father.” By expressing the matter of son-placement thus, Paul gains another opportunity to drive home the main point of his epistle to the justification-by-works, flirting Galatians-i.e., that it was the work of Christ alone that had provided their atonement, apart from their works.
111Olson (pp. 267-273) shows that “predestination,” a rare word found only once in Classical Greek (Demosthenes, laid claim), really means “preappointment.” Olson also cites G.H.W. Lampe [A Patristic Lexicon of Greek (Oxford, 1961)] who noted that the word proorizein is used by the early church fathers in 30+ occurrences, yet never with a likely sense of “predestination,” but rather of “preappointment.” Says Olson: “From an examination of its six occurrences in four contexts in the New Testament and the meaning of its cognates horizein and aphorizein, as well as these rare secular usages, a meaning like “to preappoint” emerges.”
112Perhaps one reason Olson (following G.H.W. Lampe) has accepted the conclusion that “predestinate” really has a meaning like “to preappoint,” may be that he subconsciously senses that the word “predestinate” has been defined irrationally (and therefore falsely) by Calvinists. One can only imagine what impulse toward irresistibility Lampe might have ‘found’ in the patristic usage of proorizein, had he been a Calvinist.
Thus, as “predestinate” has been tainted with Calvinistic definition to a point where the word’s proper rehabilitation in Evangelicalism is, from a practical standpoint, all but impossible, it is simply easier to find a relative synonym without all the Calvinistic trappings of association. For in English it must be admitted that, e.g., there is not a very great difference in the statements, “He was predestined for greatness,” and “He was preappointed for greatness.” The chief difference would seem to lie in connotation. Thus I believe the reason Olson has had to settle on “preappoint” is because Calvinism has destroyed the original meaning of ‘predestinate’ as intended in the Greek. This destruction appears to have chiefly come through extensive commentary. This is where the true apologist must try to put his finger in the hole of the theological dyke to stop the Calvinistic flow of irrationality. Indeed, maintaining an honest use of words is the ongoing challenge of those trying to be true to language. For certainly if all translations today substituted the word “preappoint” for “predestinate,” it would be a short time until “preappoint” would come to mean the same thing in Christians’ minds as “predestinate” already does, since only a short time is required for a little leaven of Calvinistic revisionism to affect the whole lump of a particular word’s definition. Meanwhile, there is only the occasional blip on Evangelicalism’s radar that would suggest something is wrong with its general appearance of smooth-sailing, Calvinist-based, theological language. When the radar does ‘blip,’ a more winsome term is sought, which means there is an adoption of some new Calvinistic term and a disinheritance of the old one. The snuggly term ‘compatibilism,’ to describe the alleged antinomy of what we recognize to be Calvinism’s doublethink, comes readily to mind.
Now regarding this phenomenon of negative association on the ‘uncozy’ side of the equation, I heard just this week from a friend that a certain Mr. X says he is not (or says he should not be called) a Calvinist, though Mr. X apparently agrees with Calvin’s doctrine. We presume the reason Mr. X wishes to avoid this label is the same kind of reason (i.e., negative association) that political liberals no longer like to be called “liberals,” though the term was once widely used without so much negative implication. For in American politics the term ‘liberal’ appears to have once had the positive connotation of being generous hearted, but it came to mean in many person’s minds something much different and negative. And since politicians seek labels with positive associations, the solution became a matter of change and marketing.
The same is true about Calvinistic language. The true Christian apologist of the future will need to spot linguistic revisionism, not only of those words whose definitions were changed in some murky past (and yet still manage to serve effectively the cause of irrationalism), but also of those words now being discarded for ones more positive and winsome-sounding.
The true apologist’s battle is less with Calvinists than with the Enemy. (Indeed, the true apologist is not to regard any Calvinists who are his brothers as enemies). When the Devil, who seems to have the ear of so many Calvinist-leaning Christians today, finds that his revisionism of, say, a-b-c is exposed, he will find it convenient to remind Calvinist-leaning Christians of their growing discomfort with that term, and that a truer reflection of their position (demeanor included) is really found in x-y-z. In reality, the Enemy’s a-b-c doctrine equals x-y-z doctrine, but the marketing change tends to pass unnoticed. [The Emergent Gospel (to cite an example in the non-Calvinist realm, though even here one might argue that in spirit the Emergent Church is Calvinistic in the one sense of committing itself to the ridding of distinctives), repackaged as the Social Gospel, is one such example.] In the spirit of this adventure, the NIV has now begun to use the term “sovereign Lord,” (emphasis mine) which for many Christians will mean a sovereignty of absolute degree, a term sounding more benign, personal, and protective than the mere brute term, “the Almighty.” Yet for some strange reason theological terms seem to have a longer ’shelf life’ than the label assigned to the protagonists who defend them. That is, though Calvinists try to avoid the label ‘Calvinist,’ they seem to feel less antagonized when making dogmatic statements about Calvinistic doctrine. Probably the reason for this strange state of affairs is because people are generally more hypersensitive about the names they are called than about the labels applied to the doctrines they believe. Apparently, there just isn’t the same emotional investment across the board.
Still, not all theological terms have remained unscathed. Again, ‘limited atonement’ has been taking a particular fall in favor of late, probably because it sounds too excluding (and maybe even bloody) for today’s ‘tolerance’ environment, and probably also because the large and vocal Baptist contingency in America seems to find the ‘L’ in TULIP a particularly objectionable and loathsome letter. The Calvinistic revisionist result? The much more winsome-sounding, “particular redemption,” with its suggested focus on the benefit to the believer, rather than on that arbitrary damnation of the lost. And thus the dance of language continues.
113For an exegesis of foreknowledge (Gr. proginwskw), see Thomas R. Edgar’s article at [http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/ Vol%209-1%20ar3.pdf]. The subject of foreknowledge has been so thoroughly treated by Thomas Edgar in his article, that I can only (again) urge that the reader study Edgar’s unparalleled treatment of proginwskw (foreknowledge) and his masterly critique of the Calvinist’s defective hermeneutic arising from the Calvinist’s failure to employ sound lexical practice.
114The failure to understand that God knows contingent (alternate possible) histories apart from predetermining them has been a real obstacle in understanding God, not only for Calvinists but also for Open Theists. Thus while Open Theists believe that God has exhaustive knowledge about the past and present, they do not believe that God has foreknowledge of the future, except regarding His own determination to enter man’s history at certain points to effect His work in the world. As Thomas Edgar points out, this is the great similarity between Calvinists and Open Theists: both believe that divine foreknowledge is not possible unless God has also determined it. Thus, this belief that man is not really free to choose his choices if God knows what his choices will be, is a defining doctrine of the Open Theistic movement. Matthew 11, however (as we have already seen), shows that Christ knew the alternate possible histories of specific cities.
115Regarding time and space, God has the ability to perform an act upon every one of the smallest points of time, or indivisible points, according to 1 Corinthians 15:52, Greek atomeros for “moment” (”uncut-able atom of time”) “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” contextually understood by the phrase “twinkling of an eye” to be an indivisible moment, rather than a non-moment (the Greek “a” negating the word, or putting the word in apposition), whereas man, though existing during these smallest points of time, is only able to perform an act upon points of time greatly spaced apart from one another. How greatly spaced apart are these acting points for man in relation to God’s acting points? They are as the earth is to the height of the heavens. As the Lord says, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts, saith the Lord.” God is different than man in chiefly three ways: 1) He is uncreated and sustains the form of His own being, and the being of all His created forms, 2) He exceedingly exceeds man’s degree of power, and 3) He chooses to remain morally upright (”The Lord is not as a man, that He should repent [i.e., change his mind].”
lviSpence, H.D.M. and Joseph Excell (editors). The Pulpit Commentary. (London and New York; Funk & Wagnalls Company, new edition).
lviiTelford, Andrew. Subjects of Sovereignty. (Philadelphia: Berachah Church).
lviiiBrown, T. Pierce. “Born or Adopted” [http://www.oldpaths.com/ Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/adoption.html].