Are we God's ADOPTED children?

[EnviroBecca]

I read this concept in a 1970s book about the Holy Spirit that I checked out of my church library. (It has a whole variety of books which do not necessarily agree with the teachings of our church.) The author says that when people become Christians, we are "adopted" by God as God's children. He says that the idea that all human beings are children of God is a false teaching; we're all created by God, but only those who put themselves up for adoption become children of God.

Has anybody heard this concept before?? Do you agree, and can you explain it better?

It's really rubbed me the wrong way because I see adoption as the legal formalization of an intentional emotional bond between people who are not biologically related. Of course biology doesn't exactly apply to God, but...I made my son; I'm his mother in that sense; that never changes even if someone else adopts him. God made me; God is my father in that sense; that never changes even if I get adopted by, say, Zeus. So I feel like this book is saying that God was NOT really my father until I became a Christian, and in fact God is not truly my father now but only acting as my father. So who is my real father, then, and how come I never noticed him? :

This isn't causing me a major existential crisis or anything; I'm just puzzled by what the heck this author is talking about!

[Subliime]

I have heard this before but I never really put much thought into it. I'm curious what other people have to say about this. I have no idea!

[Bluegoat]

This is a common way in Christianity of talking about our relationship with God.

It's important to remember that it is a kind of model or metaphor - obviously we are not really adopted in the sense a child is adopted - there is no heavenly adoption agency.

Typically, theologians like to express a few very specific ideas with this language. One is the difference between the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and God and creation (us.) Christ is like a real son, God of God, begotten, not created. Our children are like us in nature, dog's have dog babies, cats have cat babies. But we are not God's children in the same way, we are more like a table or a painting, something created. Even if we created a living thing, it would not be our child. But, because of God's great mercy, we can be children by adoption.

So, stricktly speaking, it is not correct to call us children of God, we are not. We are not the same kind of being as he is, we are creatures, like dogs and plants and rocks and angels and demons.

The other aspect that is often being referred to is the Fall. Because of the Fall, we are no longer in the close relationship to God that we were before. It is through what Christ did that we can be brought back into that close relationship with God.

It is actually quite a revolutionary thing to be told that we can become Children of God. Many religions would say such a thing is impossible, because it is not our nature. The next big question is how do we become children of God? I think God gave us, or most of us, the ability to choose him or not, and God adopts any who choose him by being Christians. I also think he may well choose to adopt some who don't do this as Christians, but I don't think he overrides our choice. (Those who are big into the idea of the elect would disagree, and say God chooses who he will adopt.)

[TzippityDoulah]

honestly, when people try to describe the way God is, and his relationship with humans they come up with all sorts of ways of explaining it. maybe that registers with the writer, but i don't think it's an issue of right or wrong. it's just an anology and one can't make doctrine off of an anology.

[doubledutch]

i've never heard this and it doesn't really resonate with me. however, if (op) you really wanted to embrace the concept and sort out the questions it raised for you . . . i'm guessing a couple of explanations might be that god has wanted at all times to adopt all people, but it has to be consensual (already a flaw in the metaphor because adoption doesn't work that way) and that your "real" father would be, um, your real father. your biological father. with god adopting you as your spiritual father. whatever, it does nothing for me, lol. just taking a stab at how someone with this perspective might address the issues you raised.

i think it's "correct" to refer to god as a father and people as his children in the same sense that it's "correct" to refer to god as a shepherd and people as his sheep. it's a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally.

[doubledutch]

question, hopefully not too off-topic

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Christ is like a real son, God of God, begotten, not created.

by this do you mean that you believe there was a time when 'god the son' did not exist? what does 'begotten' mean to you? i can't imagine a way that could not mean 'god the father' existed before 'god the son', and i ask out of (respectful ) curiousity. not trying to pick your words apart.

[JamieCatheryn]

Timing doesn't work the same with God, God exists outside of time as far as I've learned and understand. Mainline Christianity says the Father and Son are co-eternal (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, right?) begotten yet co-eternal...big theological stuff, doesn't work with human experience so I don't know if we can really "get it". I think I've yet to understand just what divinely begotten means, I think the implications have to do with the Son being God and not just in-the-image-of.

The Children of Israel are God's chosen people, do they count as His children and then gentiles who choose to be his children are adopted, or are all of those who choose to be God's children adopted?

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

by this do you mean that you believe there was a time when 'god the son' did not exist? what does 'begotten' mean to you? i can't imagine a way that could not mean 'god the father' existed before 'god the son', and i ask out of (respectful ) curiousity. not trying to pick your words apart.

This is straight out of the Nicean Creed, which was written by the Church in the 4th century. It is found in the part that explains the relation of the Son to the Father. I'll give you the whole text:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

(This is the version the Western church uses, the Eastern one is slightly different.)

In any case, the formulation is that the Father begets the Son eternally, so you are quite right, the Son was always there. That is why is says "before all worlds" to differentiate begetting from creating. It describes the nature of the relationship between the Father and Son, but it is an eternal relationship that doesn't change. The same is true of the Holy Ghost.

I'll add, the language used is very specific and technical, and they knew what they wanted it to mean. So there isn't a lot of room to interpret what it means to me, there is too much documentation around what the people who formulated it were trying to say. This creed was developed around a number of specific controversies about Christ's nature.

[doubledutch]

but what does "the Father begets the Son eternally" mean? i understand what it means to beget a son in human terms, but have no clue what it can possibly mean in divine/spiritual/immortal terms if it does not mean "to father". does it only mean "not created"?

"you are quite right, the Son was always there" . . . oh, but i didn't say that

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

but what does "the Father begets the Son eternally" mean? i understand what it means to beget a son in human terms, but have no clue what it can possibly mean in divine/spiritual/immortal terms if it does not mean "to father". does it only mean "not created"?

"you are quite right, the Son was always there" . . . oh, but i didn't say that

It does mean not created, yes. So the Son is like the Father, eternal, unified, immaterial, self-existent. They are of one substance. As long as the Father has been there, so has the Son.

But it also addresses what is different about the Father and the Son. After all, if they were identical, wouldn't there be two Fathers? The difference is that the Father is neither begotten nor proceeds, the Son is begotten but does not proceed, and the Spirit proceeds but isn't begotten.

When we think of things proceeding or being begotten, it happens in time. First there is a father who then begets a child. But God does not exist in time, time is part of his creation. He does not change. So the Father has "always" begotten the son. God has "always" consisted of these relationships, and will never change.

Sometimes people use the analogy of knowing and loving to describe this. God the Father knows himself and has always known himself. The content of his knowledge, which is perfect, is identical to himself. That knowledge is the Son. So the Son is in every way identical to the Father except that he comes from the Father. The Father loves, or gives himself to, the Son, and that love encompasses everything he is, and the Son loves the Father back in the same way. That love is the Spirit, which includes everything that they both are (or if you are Orthodox, that the Father is.) But the Spirit comes from the Father or the Father and the Son in a different way than the Son comes from the Father.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by JamieCatheryn

Timing doesn't work the same with God, God exists outside of time as far as I've learned and understand. Mainline Christianity says the Father and Son are co-eternal (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, right?) begotten yet co-eternal...big theological stuff, doesn't work with human experience so I don't know if we can really "get it". I think I've yet to understand just what divinely begotten means, I think the implications have to do with the Son being God and not just in-the-image-of.

The Children of Israel are God's chosen people, do they count as His children and then gentiles who choose to be his children are adopted, or are all of those who choose to be God's children adopted?

I think that they would all be considered his children by adoption.

[Lollybrat]

Yes, we are the adopted children of God. We are created by God, but as other posters have pointed out, we are not of the same substance as Him. St Paul writes about our adoption in several of the epistles, such as in Romans 8 and Galations 4. He points out that as adopted children we are full heirs of God and of His heavenly kingdom. This is in contrast to other religions of the time, where people were considered to be slaves of their gods.

Growing up, I always took great comfort in this teaching because I was adopted in the earthly/legal sense as well. It was good to remember that we are all adopted children in God's family.

[christianmomof3]

It is my understanding that we are NOT adopted sons of God, but actual children of God. We are created in His image with a human spirit that is made to contact and contain God's life. When we are born again, God as the Life-Giving Spirit comes into our human spirit and dwells there. He then begins the process of transforming us into His image spreading from our spirit to our soul and when He returns even our bodies will be glorified.
When we are born again, we become a new creation.
Christ dwells in us.
We have Him as our life within us.
We are of His family with His life and His nature within us.
We are His Body.
We are not and never will be the Head - only God is the Head, but, does not the Body share the same life as the Head? Is the Body "adopted"?
No, we are son's of God in life and nature.
That is the reason that He was incarnated as a man, lived a sinless human life, went through an all inclusive death redeeming us from our sins, resurrected and ascended, so that He could become the Life-Giving Spirit who can dwell in us and be our life renewing us and transforming us into His image.

[EnviroBecca]

Thanks for the clarification, Bluegoat. The idea makes a lot more sense to me now. I still feel it's an analogy that is more off-putting than useful to me personally, but I'm not so confused!

Doubledutch, the way I think of the "begotten, not made" part (I am an Episcopalian, so this is in my creed) is that it's kind of like God reproduced by budding, like an amoeba: The new one is exactly like the first one, and both are complete, even though they were made by dividing one substance. Does that make sense?

[doubledutch]

it makes sense, but in that case one existed before the other.

[LionTigerBear]

I disagree with that concept, because I believe that God is the literal father of my spirit. So in a way He is more my Father than my biological father, I guess. And of course, in that sense, He is everyone's Father. We are all of divine spiritual heritage. That concept or teaching that you read about rubs me the wrong way, too. Maybe I'm reading it the wrong way, but it seems like maybe this person just wants to feel better than everyone else. Actually the more I think about it, the more I find the idea that God won't love us like a Father until we turn to Him, to be offensive. One of the most comforting and moving things about God, IMO, is the way He parents us lovingly even when we don't want it and have rejected Him. His parenting is not offered because we deserve it or have earned it, but because we need it.

[EnviroBecca]

LionTigerBear wrote:

Actually the more I think about it, the more I find the idea that God won't love us like a Father until we turn to Him, to be offensive. One of the most comforting and moving things about God, IMO, is the way He parents us lovingly even when we don't want it and have rejected Him.

Yes! : You articulated what's been bugging me about this idea! I feel that I'm very fortunate because I've always known God and lived in some type of relationship with God, even before I found a church and a creed; I'm also very fortunate because my biological father has loved and cared for me all my life. Many of my friends have discovered God only after a struggle, or they still don't know God and have a feeling of emptiness and seeking...and I feel they're very similar to people who grow up not knowing their father. Leaving aside the various circumstances in which human fathers may be jerks who don't care about their kids, I imagine God as being like a father who's been separated from a child by circumstance but still has her birthday on his calendar and thinks of her every day and is fully prepared to be involved in her life if only she seeks him out. Not an adoptive father who's never heard of you until you sign up with the placement agency.

[LionTigerBear]

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

I imagine God as being like a father who's been separated from a child by circumstance but still has her birthday on his calendar and thinks of her every day and is fully prepared to be involved in her life if only she seeks him out.

Oh, that's a sweet analogy. :

[Lollybrat]

Originally Posted by EnviroBecca

I imagine God as being like a father who's been separated from a child by circumstance but still has her birthday on his calendar and thinks of her every day and is fully prepared to be involved in her life if only she seeks him out. Not an adoptive father who's never heard of you until you sign up with the placement agency.

I find that statement very insulting to adoptive families. It perpetuates the idea that adoption is "second best". I completely disagree that an absent biological father who circles his child's birthday on the calender is somehow preferable to an adoptive father who is lovingly present and involved every day of his child's life.

Galations 4:1-7

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Romans 8:12-17

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For 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. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For 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.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and 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

St. Paul is emphsizing that we are not slaves of God, rather we are full heirs of God. Moreover, it is God's own choice to offer us this kind of a relationship. Adoptive parents choose to take a child and make him/her their heir. Just as Israel was the chosen people of God, we as Christians are the chosen children and heirs of God. It takes our relationship with God to a deeper level than the Old Testament Covenant did.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by doubledutch

it makes sense, but in that case one existed before the other.

No, only if they exist in the universe, which of course ameobas do. God does not.

Time is a property of the universe God made, and did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

There is a difference between logical priority and temporal priority - they do not always go together. In the case of an amoeba, the parent is prior both temporally, and materially to the bud. With God temporal causation does not apply.

If you imagine God as a guy with a body and he is holding the universe in his hand, like a sphere, time would be going on inside the sphere, but not outside. God could look at the sphere and see everything that is going on at every place and time.

In a A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says the idea of God being bound by time is "based on the unspoken assumption that time continues back forever, whether or not the universe had existed forever. As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the universe." This is a case where religion, philosophy, and physics are in perfect accord.