Scriptural Authority .

[posthuman]

I honestly have no idea whatsoever what a "Pelagian" is, AND I DON'T CARE.

that's why i elaborated on what specifically was implied by that word. read the rest of my very short post

briefly, Pelagius was an early heretic, who is specifically known for placing human free will above the sovereignty of God, denying original sin/total depravity and believing that it is man is inherently good in his heart, not evil - so that it is man who chooses God, rather than God who chooses us.

people who are antagonistic towards reformed doctrine ((which is really rooted in Augustine et al, not Calvin et al)) are generally not Arminian, as has been pointed out earlier -- they are usually Pelagian, the most common theme being that nugget which is the question of whether our personal salvation is fundamentally a result of God's sovereignty or of man's free will.

idc about the names either. they're just useful for brevity in discussions like this, because if we know what the basics of what the names represent, we can use the names instead of a lot more words.

 

[Live4Him]

what i asked for is a secular source, outside of the Bible, that confirms the interpretation you suggest for this word.
because what i have heard is that this word is only found in Paul's writings -- not just that the other authors of the NT did not use it, but that other people outside of the church didn't appear to ever use this word.

that is -- i have been told that there is no evidence in ancient Greek/Roman texts that this was a common word or even a word at all.
you are telling me it was a common word everyone knew and that it doesn't mean what the contracted word literally means, and that everyone knew that.
can you give evidence from any source outside of Paul's writings that this was a commonly used Greek word explicitly having the meaning 'becoming an adult' ?

I know what you asked, and I did mention the history book.

As far as Paul's intended usage is concerned, as I explained in my first response here, much of his writings are obviously related to the exact custom that I'm describing.

Again, at a Roman "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony, two main things happened:

1. A new garment was donned, the "toga virilis", which signified that the child how now passed into adulthood.

You can see an example of this here:

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/mint...ga-virilis-the-sign-he-had-entered-adulthood/

2. The child was formally recognized as an heir.

If you properly understand this Roman custom of "adoption", then it sheds a lot of light on Paul's epistles.

In other words, Paul regularly used language in line with taking off an old garment and putting on a new garment, figuratively speaking.

For example:

I Corinthians chapter 15

[51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
[55] O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

This taking off of our corruptible bodies and putting on of incorruptible bodies, and this putting off of mortal bodies and putting on of immortal bodies, are directly related to the example of Roman "adoption" that Paul was consistently using.

Paul also regularly spoke of our FUTURE INHERITANCE which won't be ours until time of Christ's second coming because, as Christians, we're still waiting for our "adoption" to be complete:

Romans chapter 8

[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.
[16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
[17] And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
[18] For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
[19] For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
[20] For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
[21] Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[22] For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
[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.

Again, as Christians, we are still "WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION, to wit, THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODY".

Our "adoption" is NOT YET COMPLETE, and it won't be complete until we receive glorified bodies or until the time comes that, figuratively speaking, we take off our old garment or body and replace it with a new garment or body. When this happens, we will share Christ's INHERITANCE with him, just like a Roman child during his "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony.

Please don't miss THE FACT that our "adoptions" are not yet complete.

For this very reason, Paul said that God has given us "the spirit of adoption" (Rom. 8:15) or "the earnest of the Spirit" (II Cor. 1:22, 5:5), as in "earnest money" or a down payment, because the purchase won't be completed until the time comes that our own "adoptions" (the redemption of our bodies - Rom. 8:23) is complete.

 

[posthuman]

that's why i elaborated on what specifically was implied by that word. read the rest of my very short post

briefly, Pelagius was an early heretic, who is specifically known for placing human free will above the sovereignty of God, denying original sin/total depravity and believing that it is man is inherently good in his heart, not evil - so that it is man who chooses God, rather than God who chooses us.

people who are antagonistic towards reformed doctrine ((which is really rooted in Augustine et al, not Calvin et al)) are generally not Arminian, as has been pointed out earlier -- they are usually Pelagian, the most common theme being that nugget which is the question of whether our personal salvation is fundamentally a result of God's sovereignty or of man's free will.

idc about the names either. they're just useful for brevity in discussions like this, because if we know what the basics of what the names represent, we can use the names instead of a lot more words.

Pelagius would say God doesn't have mercy on whom God individually chooses to have mercy -- that God only chose an abstract, unknowable ((even to God)) class of people {anyone who chooses God} and that God chose to have mercy on anyone who put themselves into that category. in that paradigm, who is actually in that abstract category, and whether anyone is in that category at all, has nothing to do with God whatsoever and everything to do with each sovereign human's absolutely free and uncorrupted individual will.

so functionally a Pelagian is saying that it is man who chooses who God will have mercy on; that God doesn't select individuals but individuals select themselves.

 

[Live4Him]

but you haven't established that this word translated as "adoption" really doesn't mean adoption, so you are arguing circularly by using Galatians as evidence that it means what it says it means, aren't you?

look, Paul says we are become sons rather than servants.
are children servants? anyone under 14 treated as a slave rather than a member of the family?
no?
then you're eisegeting with this argument. you're forcing a particular interpretation of the word "placed as sons" onto the text, and then using that interpretation to justify the interpretation, claiming "placed as sons" doesn't mean "placed as sons" but "become an adult"
but if i agree with the literal meaning "placed as son" then i can use the same text to say that a man who was a slave, becoming now a son, is not an example of 'becoming of age' -- because children aren't slaves. so i can argue that your interpretation of this word is wrong.

so do you understand what i'm asking? and why?
if it is true that "placed as son" does not mean "adopted" -- since you are saying it doesn't, and you also claimed it was 'common knowledge' that everyone would have immediately known -- then to prove that you need to establish that people outside of Paul used this word, that they never used this word to refer to adoption of a person outside of a family into the family, and that people used this word all the time to refer to a person becoming a teenager or adult.

can you find this word in any ancient Greek text that isn't the Bible and isn't some early church father quoting Paul?
secular Greek use in the time period will either falsify or validate your claim. that's what i want to see, if there is any. i've never heard anyone say what you're saying -- what i have heard is that it's not a common word, it's kind of Paul making up his own words ((like 'concision')).
maybe i heard wrong, maybe you are right, i don't know -- so i kind of want to look into it and see, which means, i need external evidence. make sense?

I'm not eisegeting anything, and you actually just proved my point.

In other words, in Roman society back then, children truly differed nothing from slaves until the time of their "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony.

Anyhow, I need to take care of some other things right now, so I'll check back later.

 

[Live4Him]

that's why i elaborated on what specifically was implied by that word. read the rest of my very short post

briefly, Pelagius was an early heretic, who is specifically known for placing human free will above the sovereignty of God, denying original sin/total depravity and believing that it is man is inherently good in his heart, not evil - so that it is man who chooses God, rather than God who chooses us.

people who are antagonistic towards reformed doctrine ((which is really rooted in Augustine et al, not Calvin et al)) are generally not Arminian, as has been pointed out earlier -- they are usually Pelagian, the most common theme being that nugget which is the question of whether our personal salvation is fundamentally a result of God's sovereignty or of man's free will.

idc about the names either. they're just useful for brevity in discussions like this, because if we know what the basics of what the names represent, we can use the names instead of a lot more words.

All that I can tell you is that I'm a Christian.

Of this, both God and I are sure.

I couldn't give a rip about Pelagian or anybody else.

Just saying...

 

[posthuman]

Again, at a Roman "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony, two main things happened:

1. A new garment was donned, the "toga virilis", which signified that the child how now passed into adulthood.

You can see an example of this here:

https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/mint...ga-virilis-the-sign-he-had-entered-adulthood/

2. The child was formally recognized as an heir.

but this doesn't show anyone used this word "placed as sons" to mean coming of age. all it does is establish that there was in fact a notion of 'becoming an adult' in Roman society.

similarly i can point you at a link:

https://carolashby.com/adoption-in-the-roman-empire/

demonstrating that adoption in the modern connotation, that a person who shares no bloodline with a man is declared to be a member of the family, was very common in Roman society especially among the wealthy who were establishing a lineage for inheritance.

so just knowing that both adoption in the literal sense and coming-of-age were practiced in the era doesn't tell me which one Paul means when he uses this word we translate as "adoption" -- an easy way to determine which it is is to find Paul's language in secular sources of his period, particularly before so they're not clouded by Paul's own writings, and see how the word is actually used in that day.

 

[posthuman]

All that I can tell you is that I'm a Christian.

Of this, both God and I are sure.

I couldn't give a rip about Pelagian or anybody else.

Just saying...

the question is whether we believe it is us who chose God, or God who chose us.

 

[1ofthem]

the most common theme being that nugget which is the question of whether our personal salvation is fundamentally a result of God's sovereignty or of man's free will.

Yes, God is sovereign. Scripture also teaches us that it is not his will that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. We know that is not going to happen. Not because God can't make it happen, but because he gave us a choice in the matter.



Choosing to accept salvation, is not saving that we are saving our own selves like Calvinists would have people to believe. It is only accepting the salvation that he has promised to anyone that will believe in and accept his Son.

 

[throughfaith]

so you're Pelagian.

you believe we predestine/appoint ourselves;
that in the case of ourselves, God only has mercy on who we choose Him to have mercy on?

The word 'predestine 'is not in Acts . God has mercy upon all .
Rom 11
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

When you read Acts 13 ( the whole chapter ) The context is clear.
Especially this verse
46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Then when you read verse 48 the Gentiies who have already asked for them to preach to them again. They ,unlike those Jews in verse 46 ,decide to recieve the word and believe. Its as simple as that . There is no Calvinism in the mind of Luke who wrote Acts .

 

[1ofthem]

the question is whether we believe it is us who chose God, or God who chose us.

God chose to send his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 5
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

 

[Live4Him]

but this doesn't show anyone used this word "placed as sons" to mean coming of age. all it does is establish that there was in fact a notion of 'becoming an adult' in Roman society.

similarly i can point you at a link:

https://carolashby.com/adoption-in-the-roman-empire/

demonstrating that adoption in the modern connotation, that a person who shares no bloodline with a man is declared to be a member of the family, was very common in Roman society especially among the wealthy who were establishing a lineage for inheritance.

so just knowing that both adoption in the literal sense and coming-of-age were practiced in the era doesn't tell me which one Paul means when he uses this word we translate as "adoption" -- an easy way to determine which it is is to find Paul's language in secular sources of his period, particularly before so they're not clouded by Paul's own writings, and see how the word is actually used in that day.

We can know of which Paul was actually referring by simply recognizing the fact that we're still WAITING FOR THE ADOPTION or THE REDEMPTION OF OUR BODIES.

It's not complete yet, and it won't be until we shed our old garments (bodies) and put on our new garments (bodies), and this is when we'll share Christ's inheritance with him...just like in the Roman "adoption" or coming-of-age ceremony.

In other words, if you want to know what Paul meant, then let Paul himself tell you.

 

[throughfaith]

that's why i elaborated on what specifically was implied by that word. read the rest of my very short post

briefly, Pelagius was an early heretic, who is specifically known for placing human free will above the sovereignty of God, denying original sin/total depravity and believing that it is man is inherently good in his heart, not evil - so that it is man who chooses God, rather than God who chooses us.

people who are antagonistic towards reformed doctrine ((which is really rooted in Augustine et al, not Calvin et al)) are generally not Arminian, as has been pointed out earlier -- they are usually Pelagian, the most common theme being that nugget which is the question of whether our personal salvation is fundamentally a result of God's sovereignty or of man's free will.

idc about the names either. they're just useful for brevity in discussions like this, because if we know what the basics of what the names represent, we can use the names instead of a lot more words.

Never start with a philosophy before coming to the text . Either on ' sovereignty ' or ' free will . This is the mistake both Augustine and Pelagius made.

 

[throughfaith]

For anyone who has had the boogeyman 'Pelagian' label thrown at them ( Calvinist poisoning the well shaming tactic),this is a useful read .
https://soteriology101.com/2018/02/11/pelagianism-the-boogie-man/

 

[throughfaith]

so you're Pelagian.

you believe we predestine/appoint ourselves;
that in the case of ourselves, God only has mercy on who we choose Him to have mercy on?

The best understanding of ‘tasso’ [ordained/ appointed ] in Acts 13:48 is that it refers to Gentiles who were ‘in position for eternal life’ — ‘ready for eternal life’ — or even ‘intent on obtaining eternal life’ (particularly in contrast to the Jews of the same episode who opposed Paul and rejected the gospel, and so who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life [Acts 13:46]), and that the most accurate translation of the phrase in question would be something like: ‘as many as were disposed to eternal life believed’ or ‘as many as were aligned for eternal life believed’ or ‘as many as were positioned for eternal life believed.‘

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Well hopefully know one would pick Arian.

Why pick an error?. I know you are being sarcastic. Both are an error.

So this is my question.
Why would anyone think that you can choose to believe or have faith in something? That's not even how our mind works. We believe anything we believe because we are convinced by outside evidence. Now here is a strange thing that humans can do that I find to be one very annoying thing. I have watched people reject believing something even though they are clearly convinced. They rejected because they chose to hold on to a position that they held prior. They couldn't accept being wrong even though they were just convinced they were. They rejected the new evidence. But it has never happened that someone chose to believe a thing by force of will. So why would be think that it would be different when it comes to faith in God? If someone says they choose to believe a thing it usually means they are rejecting something new that would change the old belief.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

P.S.

Calvin was not only a heretic, but an arch-heretic.

There, I said it.

If he were still alive today, then I'd personally tell him where he could put his TULIPs (two lips).

I think you go too far calling him a heretic. Immature in his understanding, foolish even. While I agree that the assertion that God has created men appointed to destruction is borderline blasphemous.

Is God sovereign? Yes.
Is his grave irresistible? Yes
Can someone leave grace and re-enter condemnation? Yes.
Salvation it by Grace, through faith. Can one believe and have faith and then, being convinced by deception that faith is wrong and thereby leave Grace in rejection? Yes.
Can a person choose to believe? Not until they believe already, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Which is the first working of Grace in the individual. How ever this is not the first working of Grace, which is that Christ died for the sins of all the world.

So both Arius and Calvin are wrong, by failing to understand, and falling into critical error.

 

[throughfaith]

I think you go too far calling him a heretic. Immature in his understanding, foolish even. While I agree that the assertion that God has created men appointed to destruction is borderline blasphemous.

Is God sovereign? Yes.
Is his grave irresistible? Yes
Can someone leave grace and re-enter condemnation? Yes.
Salvation it by Grace, through faith. Can one believe and have faith and then, being convinced by deception that faith is wrong and thereby leave Grace in rejection? Yes.
Can a person choose to believe? Not until they believe already, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Which is the first working of Grace in the individual. How ever this is not the first working of Grace, which is that Christ died for the sins of all the world.

So both Arius and Calvin are wrong, by failing to understand, and falling into critical error.

No verse says God's grace is irresistible. This is calvinistic thinking . When you say " is God sovereign " what do you mean ? And what do you mean by " Can someone leave grace and re-enter condemnation?Yes " ? I know Catholics teach that you must die in a ' state of grace " . But this negates what actually happens to a person when they receive Jesus.

 

[Live4Him]

I think you go too far calling him a heretic. Immature in his understanding, foolish even. While I agree that the assertion that God has created men appointed to destruction is borderline blasphemous.

Is God sovereign? Yes.
Is his grave irresistible? Yes
Can someone leave grace and re-enter condemnation? Yes.
Salvation it by Grace, through faith. Can one believe and have faith and then, being convinced by deception that faith is wrong and thereby leave Grace in rejection? Yes.
Can a person choose to believe? Not until they believe already, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Which is the first working of Grace in the individual. How ever this is not the first working of Grace, which is that Christ died for the sins of all the world.

So both Arius and Calvin are wrong, by failing to understand, and falling into critical error.

Calvin was not only a heretic, but, as I said earlier, an arch-heretic.

https://www.wordsense.eu/arch-heretic/#English

arch-heretic (pl. arch-heretics)

1. (religion) A leader of a heresy, a most prominent or leading heretic.

I've personally witnessed the POISONOUS FRUITS of this teachings in more people than I care to remember (because of the grief that I feel for their souls).

Anyhow, if anybody wants to talk about CHRIST, then I'm all in.

 

[Live4Him]

No verse says God's grace is irresistible. This is calvinistic thinking . When you say " is God sovereign " what do you mean ? And what do you mean by " Can someone leave grace and re-enter condemnation?Yes " ? I know Catholics teach that you must die in a ' state of grace " . But this negates what actually happens to a person when they receive Jesus.

I thought that he meant that the "grave" (I guess that he misspelled "grace") was irresistible or inevitable.

Acts chapter 7

[51] Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
[52] Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

That doesn't sound like "irresistible grace" to me...especially when we consider that the Holy Ghost is "the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29).

 

[Live4Him]

This is the problem:

People get indoctrinated into a certain belief system by following the teachings of a man or denomination, and then they are incapable of comprehending what the scriptures which fly directly in the face of their indoctrinated beliefs actually mean or just too proud to admit that they are in error.

IT'S FRIGHTENING!