I am trying to understand the Reformed ‘*ordo salutis*’ or order of salvation events and the rationale for the placement of **adoption** in that order. I take this (from Wikipedia) as the Reformed (Calvinist) sequence, which serves as background to my question: - Predestination - Election - Calling (outward and inward) - Regeneration - Faith - Repentance - Justification - **Adoption** - **Sanctification** - Perseverance - Glorification **First**, excepting election in times long past and possibly the extent in time of the inward and outward calls, are most remaining parts of the order simultaneous and so merely ordered logically? Or are they conceived of as both logically and temporally arranged? If some hold to each view, which is the most common? **Second**, Sanctification is a process, so I can accept that it begins before adoption and continues to completion after adoption. My confusion springs from this passage in Ephesians 1:3-10 (ESV): >**3** Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, **4** even as he **chose** us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should **be holy and blameless** before him. In love **5** he **predestined** us for **adoption** as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, **6** to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. **7** In him we have **redemption** through his blood, the **forgiveness** of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, **8** which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight **9** making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ **10** as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is possible to infer some pairwise ordering of salvation events from the preceding, but by no means sort them all in a coherent way. If “holy and blameless” means sanctification then it is listed here before adoption. That does not require that adoption comes after sanctification, but certainly cannot be used to prove that adoption comes before sanctification. So what is the argument used by prominent Reformed Theologians for putting adoption before sanctification? Galatians 4:1-7 looks promising, but it is tied up in a complex argument, so I am not sure what it proves. Romans 8:18-25 equates adoption with the redemption of our bodies. That seems to speak of us receiving our resurrected bodies, which I would put after sanctification, so more confusion there.

I have a question pertaining to Hebrews 12:22-23, which says: > “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the > heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to myriads of angels in joyful > assembly, to the congregation of the firstborn, enrolled in heaven. > You have come to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the > righteous made perfect.” Are the myriads of angels the “congregation of the firstborn enrolled in heaven” and the “spirits of the righteous made perfect”? Is this saying that the chosen of God become angels? Jesus said in Mark 12:25, > “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. > Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.” We see here that Jesus declares that we will be “like the angels”. Romans 8:19 says, > “The creation waits in eager expectation for the revealing of the sons > of God.” Here again, Paul said that the chosen of God are adopted as sons of God; a title shared by angels. Along with the belief that Jesus is the Chief Angel of God, and those who believe in him will become “just as he is” in glorified composition, does Hebrews 12:22-23 thus imply that believers become sons of God (angels) just as Jesus is the Son of God?

In conversations with my son (topic irrelevant), he mentioned the idea of being the son of the Pope. I told him that would not be possible (celibacy vow), but he immediately countered: "What if he adopted?". I was not able to provide a satisfactory answer. I've seen the same question about priests (needing permission from the Church) or having a child before being ordained (is OK). But not about the current pope (or a future one). Would there be any obstacle to this scenario?

Does the Catholic canon law say anything about the case where a Catholic priest unexpectedly inherits an estate by default since all his siblings (who don't have kids) have died? - In the case of a priest who has taken a vow of poverty (like in a religious order): can this priest adopt an adult as "child" for inheritance purpose to dispose the assets? If not, are there other mechanism that allow the priest to make decisions regarding the beneficiary and/or the management of the estate? - In the case of a diocesan priest who does *not* take a vow of poverty, can he become owner of the estate and manage it? A related question: does this inheritance now belong either to the diocese or to the religious order (like the Jesuits)?

I am a new Christian and I am reading the Bible. I have the following question: About the "son of God" that has been mentioned in chapter 8 verse 14 of Romans, how can a person be "led" by the spirit of God, since by this verse, the Son of God is not unique and all of us can become a "son of God"!. 8:14 Romans >For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

Is there a Christological doctrine that teaches that Jesus wasn't originally divine but _inherited_ or _became_ divine, being exalted into divinity by the Father as the result of an act or event?

According to Catholicism and some evangelical denomination in order to give justifications the perpetual virginity of Mary, they affirm that the word "Brother" in the Bible is ambiguous and include cousin and relatives. But if that is the case, _can we really be named brothers of Jesus?_ or we should be just cousins or relatives of Christ?

If one is begotten, then one cannot be adopted by those same parents. The idea of being begotten means that you are the biological progeny of your parents. In other words, the woman whom you call “mother” is the same woman who gave birth to you. But, in the case of adoption, the woman whom you call “mother” is not the same woman who gave birth to you. (Let’s recall that the New Testament was written in the 1st century A.D. There were no such things as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood.) Likewise, if you are adopted, your father is not the same man who begat you. With that being said, how can we reconcile the fact that Christians are said to be both begotten/born again and adopted? ## Begotten - John 1:12-13 cp. 1 Pet. 1:3 >12 But to those who received him, he gave them power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe that believe in his name, 13 who were begotten, neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. > >ΙΒʹ ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ΙΓʹ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν TR, 1550 ## Adopted - Gal. 4:5 cp. Rom. 8:15; Eph. 1:5 >5 in order to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we may receive the adoption of sons. > >Εʹ ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν TR, 1550 Michael Peppard wrote, >In the move from proclamation to narration, however, each early Christian theologian had to make a decision about how to portray the metaphor of divine sonship. Is it begotten or adopted? By the fourth century, the answer would become mostly clear: the divine sonship of Jesus Christ was by begetting and that of everyone else was by adoption. But in the first two centuries, and especially in areas more influenced by Roman culture, a high view of adopted sons was well established. ## References Peppard, Michael. “Adopted and Begotten Sons of God: Paul and John on Divine Sonship.” *Catholic Bible Quarterly*, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, pp. 92–110.

Assuming the Church recognizes adoption, if a man or woman were to invite another to live together as a loving relationship as parent and child, but without any secular legal process, would the Church recognize the adoption? I ask this because some Catholics in history and today have lived/live in a land where there is no secular legal process to recognize an adoption. If the legal document is required, why does secular law have such an impact on Church teaching? (In some countries adoption is completely illegal.) By "recognize" I mean if it would be a mortal sin if at some point in time the 2 parties changed their minds on the nature of the relationship and decided to get married, or the parent giving up and cutting all ties with the child. So the adoption being just as permanent and having the same dignity as a biological parenthood.

A Catholic priest must take a vow of celibacy (i.e. unmarried) and thus expected to remain continent (i.e. abstain from sex) so as not to commit a fornication. Is a priest permitted to adopt a child, given that it does not break this vow? Would it matter if they were the only surviving relative of the child?

I admired George Muller's works in caring for orphans and his faith in God to provide for his need. However, I find it troubling that he didn't accept illegitimate orphans. > George Muller was a Prussian who came to Britain in 1829 in order to > train for Christian missionary service. Some years later, inspired by > the example of August Francke's orphanage in Halle (founded in 1696), > George Muller began a similar work in Bristol. Muller's Homes - a > complex of five gigantic barracks at Ashley Down, Bristol - provided > accommodation for over sixteen hundred orphans mainly aged from seven > to twelve years, who received an elementary education and were trained > for trade or domestic service. The outstanding characteristic of > Muller's work was that it depended entirely on faith in God: George > Muller had no personal resources, yet he never asked for money; his > Institution never went into debt; all his assistants were committed > Christian believers and, on leaving, children were apprenticed to > Christian employers or placed in service in Christian homes. His > orphanages never attempted to be children's hospitals or > reformatories; incorrigible delinquents were reluctantly expelled, > and, curiously enough, **George Muller did not accept illegitimate > children**. But the scale of Muller's work created a public awareness of > the problem of orphan children, and aroused Christians to their > responsibilities. George Muller was one of the early founders of the > (open) Christian Brethren. > > [link](http://www.kinghamhillschooldays.co.uk/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115%3Achapter-1-children-in-need&catid=44&Itemid=67) > *Emphasis mine* What is his Biblical reason for not accepting illegitimate children? **Update** While searching, I found [this article](http://www.follow-the-light.org/2010/05/orphan-foundling-or-runaway.html) and learned that it was not easy to adopt illegitimate child during their times: > I know it’s hard to believe, but foundlings [illegitimate children] > generally died in the streets because there was no home for them, and > **adoption, as it is known today in the western world, has generally been illegal throughout most of history**. - > British almshouses (poorhouses) were more difficult to get into than > either of the other institutions [Charles Spurgeon's and Muller's orphanages] > mentioned in the first paragraph. > Spurgeon and Muller both lamented the cruel system of gathering > signatures, securing votes, and the complex paper work necessary to > place a child into an almshouse. Most almshouses were notoriously > horrible places. 90% of the foundlings who went into almshouses died > before reaching 10 years old. It took Thomas Coram, a wealthy retired > shipbuilder who was shocked to see dead babies in the streets of > London, years to get legal permission to open the first home for > foundlings. Afterwords his legal charter was repeatedly debated, and > at one point rescinded, because **saving foundlings was considered a > corrupting influence on society**. Could it be that George Muller tried to avoid running afoul with the law or is it that, sadly, he shared with the his society the social stigma on illegitimate children?