Kevin Bennett

Join in the conversation!

Here is the place where you can pose a question, propose an answer to someone else’s question, or discuss other people’s answers. If someone answers your question well, be sure to “Select” the best answer.

… and also make sure to up-vote questions and answers that you find helpful.

Kevin Bennett
86 Rep. 4 Answers 0 Questions 0 Followers 0 Following 1116 Comments


  • 4 answers, 2 selected
  • 0 questions, 0 solved
  • Member for 6 years, 10 months, 19 days
  • 3241 profile views
  • Last seen 2 days ago


Total 86
January 26, 2018 Commented Hi Saji, Thank you for taking the time to comment! I see that you're saying the believer is not a son by birth, but by adoption instead. How do you reconcile that with such ideas as these?
But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become sons of God, born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of a husband, but born of God.
- John 1:12-13
Amen, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’
- John 3:5 ... and so many others. Where scripture is explicit, we are obliged to accept what it says. Where it is ambiguous, then we can start wondering. Scripture is absolutely explicit that nobody can be part of the Age to Come without being born into the family of God. But scripture is less clear about "υἱοθεσία" (usually translated "adoption", but it probably should not be) - a word used only by one author in the Bible, and used in a way that if it was intended to mean what you suggest, it would contradict Jesus' own words. So I would suggest that the inspired writer cannot possibly have meant what you are suggesting. If he did it would mean he was saying the opposite of what Jesus said, and that is not what Paul does. So what we must do is attempt to learn what Paul did mean by υἱοθεσία. As I say in the article, I suggest it is a reference to inheritance. More specifically, coming into an inheritance.
December 30, 2017 Commented Hi Craig, Thanks for dropping by and spending the time to make a comment! I understand what you're saying. It's essentially what most Bible commentators are also saying. My point above is just that it's not what the Bible is saying... Romans 5 uses terms like trespass, wrath, and sin to describe the "problem", and words like gift, reconciliation, and justification to describe the "solution". In the whole chapter there was plenty of room to use the word "curse", and Paul uses that word plenty elsewhere. He most specifically did not employ that term in Romans 5. Why not? The reason is that he's not talking about a curse. He is talking about sin and death as a pattern of natural (and/or supernatural) consequences. He is saying that in Christ, through grace, those consequences are mitigated. But he doesn't talk about a curse here because there isn't one. In the article above I talk about the fact that in the Bible a "curse" is a very specific thing. It is not just a casual term used to describe something "bad". To curse someone is to exclude them, cutting them off, usually from some sort of inheritance. So I confidently assert once again, that the Bible does not say Adam and Eve were cursed. I also, in the article above, point out why it literally could not happen, just as Balaam could not curse Israel. I recommend working through that logic to see why the New Testament so carefully avoids labeling it a "curse". This is, of course, good news. It means that God always had a redemption plan for humanity. A general curse would mean there was no such plan.


3 votes received 100/100 3up 0down
4 votes casted 100/100 4up 0down

Top Answers

Question and answer is powered by AnsPress