We are God's adoptive children?

[Ravynne Sidhe]

No I didn't stutter. I was doing a Book of Mormon study with a few friends and otherwise acquaintences and we were discussing I believe Mosiah 3:17-20 I can't remember. So we were talking about what it means to be God's children, how non-believers act more Christ-like than non-believers and how loving God is.

Now this woman...Bree claims that we are the adoptive children of God, not his biological children. She makes this assertion by using Romans 9:8 and Romans 9:23.

Romans 9:8 NASB

8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Romans 9:23 NASB

23And He did so to make known (AS)the riches of His glory upon (AT)vessels of mercy, which He (AU)prepared beforehand for glory,

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Now I don't know about you but saying that we are the adopted people of God, pretty much takes away the whole theory that God is benevolent and has unconditional love for us.

So Discuss:

Are we the adoptive children of God?
Does this remove the benevolentness and unconditional love from God?
How does it make you feel, that some people think we're the adopted children of God?

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

 

[zz1000zz]

I really don't understand what is being discussed here. I blame the fact it stemmed from a discussion of the Book of Mormon (I have no respect for Mormonism).

First off, what is the significance of being "biological" as opposed to "adoptive" children? God isn't a human, so I don't even know what it would mean to be his "biological child." I certainly don't know how this issue could take away the idea of God being benevolent and has unconditional love for us. If anything, the act of adopting a child is an act of picking someone, meaning it involves choice rather than fate. That would seem to indicate even more love (if the issue made sense in the first place).

As for the two verses, they just confuse me even further. The second verse doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic being discussed (the verses which follow it are far more relevant). The first verse certainly addresses the topic of descendancy, but I don't see how it addresses the issue of adoptive/biological children.

The basic issue of Romans 9:8 and surrounding verses is the church at that time was made up mostly of Gentiles. Jews were rejecting the Gospel in large numbers. This could seemingly suggest God's word had failed with the Jews (verse six). However, verses seven and eight explain when God said "through Isaac your descendants shall be named," he did not mean the children of Isaac's flesh, but rather the children of the promise given through Isaac.

In other words, nobody is God's child simply because of who his or her parents are. Being God's child requires more than just genetics.  

[freelance lover]

I responded to this thread in another guild, but I'll go ahead and repeat my point:

I think the idea of being God's adoptive children, or otherwise, is ridiculous. We're no more his adoptive children than we are his biological children. Neither apply because God isn't a biological being. Besides, adoptive parents love their children just as much as biological parents love their children.

The idea of being God's children is simply a metaphor to help us better understand our relationship with him. The Bible gives us many different descriptions of what he is to us. It's simply to help us better understand.  

[Requiem Arc]

While I agree with the idea of God not being a biological being, I could see how this question could come up in a study on the Book of Mormon, as Mormons believe that God is, in fact, a biological being. I'm not sure how they justify this, but I know that is what they believe, or at least I know they believe that at some point God was biological.

In response to the question during the book study, I would have to say that I too do not understand exactly what is being discussed. If the discussion is a study of the Book of Mormon (which I have not read) is there a passage saying that only the biological children of God are saved? Again, I'm not sure why this is coming up.  

[Ravynne Sidhe]

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Basically what I meant by biological isn't by body but by spirit. Meaning we were after all created in his spiritual image and more so alluding to the fact that he's the creator of all things.

The discussion, if I remember correctly (this was weeks ago) was talking about how God loves his creations (us) unconditionally and how we should treat others in the same other. Very much how Jesus taught us in the NT to do the same. My friend who was running the discussion used an analogy of how God was like a parent should be, loving, understanding, yet just, which caused the other person, Bree to bring up those verses as if to say we are his adopted children, as if trying to say that God isn't the creator of all things that someone created humans.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

 

[zz1000zz]

Ravynne Sidhe

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Basically what I meant by biological isn't by body but by spirit. Meaning we were after all created in his spiritual image and more so alluding to the fact that he's the creator of all things.

The discussion, if I remember correctly (this was weeks ago) was talking about how God loves his creations (us) unconditionally and how we should treat others in the same other. Very much how Jesus taught us in the NT to do the same. My friend who was running the discussion used an analogy of how God was like a parent should be, loving, understanding, yet just, which caused the other person, Bree to bring up those verses as if to say we are his adopted children, as if trying to say that God isn't the creator of all things that someone created humans.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

I think I get the point now. I still don't see any way those two verses could support Bree's claims, but at least I know what (s)he is saying. Of course, I'd have to say Bree's idea is absurd. As Requiem Arc suggests, it probably stems from Mormonism rather than any part of the Bible.  

[Ravynne Sidhe]

zz1000zz

Ravynne Sidhe

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Basically what I meant by biological isn't by body but by spirit. Meaning we were after all created in his spiritual image and more so alluding to the fact that he's the creator of all things.

The discussion, if I remember correctly (this was weeks ago) was talking about how God loves his creations (us) unconditionally and how we should treat others in the same other. Very much how Jesus taught us in the NT to do the same. My friend who was running the discussion used an analogy of how God was like a parent should be, loving, understanding, yet just, which caused the other person, Bree to bring up those verses as if to say we are his adopted children, as if trying to say that God isn't the creator of all things that someone created humans.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

I think I get the point now. I still don't see any way those two verses could support Bree's claims, but at least I know what (s)he is saying. Of course, I'd have to say Bree's idea is absurd. As Requiem Arc suggests, it probably stems from Mormonism rather than any part of the Bible.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Bree follows more of Protestant/Evangelical Christianity versus mormonism. She's been using certain verses again the Book of Mormon trying to disprove it. However when I read the actual chapter it didn't say we are God's adoptive children, but Abraham's.

In other words, she picked and chose verses that she thought would support their claim, when in reality all she did was take them totally out of context.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

 

[zz1000zz]

Ravynne Sidhe

zz1000zz

Ravynne Sidhe

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Basically what I meant by biological isn't by body but by spirit. Meaning we were after all created in his spiritual image and more so alluding to the fact that he's the creator of all things.

The discussion, if I remember correctly (this was weeks ago) was talking about how God loves his creations (us) unconditionally and how we should treat others in the same other. Very much how Jesus taught us in the NT to do the same. My friend who was running the discussion used an analogy of how God was like a parent should be, loving, understanding, yet just, which caused the other person, Bree to bring up those verses as if to say we are his adopted children, as if trying to say that God isn't the creator of all things that someone created humans.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

I think I get the point now. I still don't see any way those two verses could support Bree's claims, but at least I know what (s)he is saying. Of course, I'd have to say Bree's idea is absurd. As Requiem Arc suggests, it probably stems from Mormonism rather than any part of the Bible.

`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -

Bree follows more of Protestant/Evangelical Christianity versus mormonism. She's been using certain verses again the Book of Mormon trying to disprove it. However when I read the actual chapter it didn't say we are God's adoptive children, but Abraham's.

In other words, she picked and chose verses that she thought would support their claim, when in reality all she did was take them totally out of context.

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

Well, I obviously don't know the person, so I can't really say what she believes. It just seemed strange those quotes would be so abused by her. I assumed the reason for the misinterpretation was it would support her personal beliefs, and the only beliefs it would support are Mormon ones.

I guess it doesn't really matter why she came up with what she said. It's pretty obvious her idea is baseless, and that's what matters.