Galatians; Sons by adoption

a reply to: luciferslight
Paul's teaching is that good deeds follow on from trusting in God.
(But this really relates to Galatians ch5, which I will be looking at in a different thread)

originally posted by: ntech
Paul also covers this adoption process with the olive tree parable of Romans 11. With that parable he compares the family tree of Jacob/Israel to a olive tree. And Gentiles as wild olive branches being grafted into the tree. Essentially a adoption process for Gentiles into the family of God.

Yes, an excellent example of the way Paul tries to explain the "adoption" message.
Also illustrating the difficulty of finding the right metaphor.
I don't know whether it's true, but I've read that Paul's idea about "re-grafting" wouldn't actually work in the way he needs it to work.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Re-grafting as you say, is I believe the more elegant metaphor of the two: a symbiosis requiring a certain amount of time to fully integrate and become a unified tree, as opposed to adopting which implies that the adopted aren't born of the adopter, whereas all people were born to G.

This was the basis of the "adoption" linguistic discomfort I expressed. Unity over empathy.

The current official opinion being that specific soups have freak offspring that become people over unobservable amounts of time. And zilch on the quest for meaning, just get back to work.

a reply to: wisvol
Any kind of grafting implies that the grafted shoot was not previously part of the tree, so the original distinction between "in" and "out" remains.
We have to distinguish between two ways of being "born from God". One relates to physical life, and in that sense God gave life to all men.
But Paul and the rest of the New Testament are talking about spiritual life, and in that sense there are some who are in a "special relationship" with God. They have become part of his particular family, whether we call the transition a new birth, an adoption, or "being grafted".

a reply to: luciferslight

No I am not saying that good works don't follow salvation. Just that Baptism is not needed for salvation.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Men decide when to receive the baptism which symbolises their faith, and God decides when they receive the Holy Spirit.
That's why the order of the two events might vary.

Frankly, I don't see any difference between the forgiveness of sin and the remission of sin.
They both mean "Your sin doesn't count against you any more".

According to Eph 1:13 you receive the Holy Ghost the moment you believe[quote[Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Now a good rule to remember is that things that are different are not the same Forgiveness is immediate. Remission is just puts their judgement for sin on hold until a future event. John called it the times of refreshing when those sins that are in remission would be blotted out.

Look at how Peter says it, "For the Remission of sin" and in the context of the Gospel of the Kingdom let's see how John the baptist says it

Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Lu 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

the final explanation is given in Act 3

Ac 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

The whole idea of there sins were in remission until the time of refreshing would come and at that time their sin would be blotted out.

After the calling of Paul to preach the gospel of the grace of God, that began were men's sins were forgiven blotted out forever before God for all time.

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Anyway, overall I thought the OP was great.

I just divide the Kingdom Gospel of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Apostles from the that of the gospel of the grace of God which Paul preached. I see two different conditions and processes taking place but both done by the work of Christ on the cross.

While the cross brings salvation to all men today under the gospel of the grace of God. But for Israel which God will take up his promise to them to establish the kingdom, the Cross purified that nation by their king and Messiah Jesus Christ but that is all still future hence the remission of sins Israel believers is still future for those under the kingdom Gospel in the past before Paul and for those who will be under it in the future after the body of Christ is gathered to Jesus.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Most certainly. But we both believe that the Holy Spirit is not tied to the act of baptism, so human actions will decide whether baptism precedes or follows.
In both Acts ch2 and Acts ch10, Peter's assumption is that they should be baptised because they believe (as shown by their repentance in the first case, and as shown by the obvious activity of the Holy Spirit in the second case).

I don't think "Repent and be baptised, and receive the Holy Spirit" means that they will receive the Spirit when they are baptised.
I suggest he means "You will receive the Holy Spirit when you repent".

a reply to: DISRAELI

I am sorry but I added some more while you posted this.

I most definitely believe you receive the Holy Ghost after faith on Christ today no baptism or repentance needed.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I most definitely believe you receive the Holy Ghost after faith on Christ today no baptism or repentance needed.

I'm only thinking of repentance as something naturally included in "faith in Christ", rather than as something additional.
Or we can think of it as a sign that faith is there.
Either way, "Repent and receive the Holy Spirit" implies "Believe and receive the Holy Spirit".

So yes, we both believe that the Holy Spirit is linked with faith.
All I'm suggesting is that Peter never taught anything different.

a reply to: DISRAELI

but notice Paul never says to repent and be baptised and receive the Holy Ghost. Or anything even close to that.

There is a difference between the two gospels being preached. And only one has been in effect since Paul came on the scene and that is the gospel of the grace of God.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent" - Acts ch17 v30
And those who responded to this speech did so by believing. They go together.

The jailer in Philippi asked "What shall I do to be saved?" They told him to believe, and when he did they baptised him. These things go together.

In the letters, Paul is talking to people who believe already, so the question of what they should do to be saved does not arise.
But the gospel is always the same gospel, as long as we don't carry literalism to excess and look for different meanings in words which are really synonyms.

a reply to: DISRAELI

repent in acts 17 is turn to god from idols not repent of sins, context is everything

Philippian jailer baptism was after belief not before or a condition of salvation.

If literalism is the same then the gospel of the grace of god is not the same as the gospel of the kingdom not in words or aspects.

Disraeli, dont get me wrong I still think you did a great job in presenting the text accurately.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
I haven't been offended. I can see that we agree on essentials.

a reply to: DISRAELI

This thread is part of a series which began here;
Getting the gospel from Christ

a reply to: DISRAELI

Disraeli, God job man.